Commons Sitting of 8 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill [Lords]; London County Council (Money) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Ticehurst and District Water and Gas Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
  Petition form Manchester and Salford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dunfermline, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Arbroath, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Sheffield, against; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Altrincham; Walthamstow (three); Heywood; Exeter; Rodley; East Ham; Wimbledon; Seghill; Glasbury; Taunton (two); Bearpark; Henshaw; Willesden Green; Gravesend; Hereford Tilehurst; Hoxton; Reading; Hebburn Colliery; Newcastle-upon-Tyne (nine); Egremont; North Shields; Blackhill; Fenny Stratford; Fleetwood; Awsworth; Fulham Dawes; W. Whatmough; New Herrington; Corris; South Tottenham; Finsbury Square; Alverstoke; Houghton le
  1042
  Spring; Sleaford; Preston; Tipton; King's Lyan; Whiteinch; Lower Wortley; Pentre; Hopwood; Bideford; Brixton; Esh; Hither Green; Meopham; Merthyr Tydfil; Tongham; Weston super Mare; Kingsbridge; Hull (three); Cardiff; Enfield Wash; Teignmouth; Lewes; South Shields; Cwmaman; Harry Haines and another (two); Luton; (two); Swadlincote; Blaenrhondda (three); William Armistead; Bexley; John Sidney Smith and another; Waterhouses (three); Mytholmroyd; Coleford; Hamsteels; Broompark; Liverpool; Blackwood; Towyn; Alexandra R. Macfarline and others; Bury Saint Edmunds; Newport (Mon.) (five); Stilton; Whitechapel; Nelson (eleven; New Clee and Weelsby; Putney; Cheddar (four); Bourton on the Water; Bridgwater; Tow Law; Lancaster; Bedminster (two); Brigham; Isle of Thanet; Clayton West; Wesleyan Temperance Society; Cameley; Ipswich (two); Willington Quay; New Hirst; Southampton; Worthing; Shotts; Abercynon; Derby (six); Leicester; Leeds; Llanfiehill; Forest Fach; Old Buckenham; Balsall Heath; Shildon; Willesden and Harlesden; Atherstone; Old Street; Long Sutton; Highbridge; Stratford; Margate; Southport; Westbury on Trym; Heckmondwike; Hyde; South Bristol; Bellshill; (two); Motherwell; Stirling; Kinross and West Fife; Dunfermline; Greenock (two); Pemberton; Sheffield (three); Husband Bosworth; Harden; Birmingham (nine); Kingston on Hull; Newton Mearns; Pentre; Tylorstown (two); Tynewyd; Edinburgh (three); Clapham; Haltwhistle; Bury (three); Burton Salmon; Meopham; Grayshott; Castleford; Petersfield; Salford; Sunninghill; Colne; (four); Wolstanton; Newcastle under Lyme; Tinhead; Biggleswade (two); Cranfield; Stotfold; Aberdeen; Gorton; Acton; Bingley (three); Eldwick Beck; Kings Heath; High Wycombe (four); Wolstanton; Longton; Gilstead; Clacton on Sea; Eadington; Watford; Oxford; Apperley Bridge; Melksham; East Morton; Castlefields; Ferndale; Mardy; Ynyshir; Castleford; Canterbury; Knockholt; Chelsfield; Shoreham; Otford; Cudham; Ightham; Weald: Sevenoaks; Watchet and Williton; Ashton under Lyne (two); Mabe; Dilston; Barking; Enfield; Plymouth;

  1043
  Forest Hill (two); Streatham Common; Halifax (two); Castleford; Leigh (five); Banbury; Loughborough; Wooburn and Bourne End; Wycombe; Bournemouth (four); Warmington; Wooler; Lowick; Spittal; Cotteridge; Caldonian Road; West Hartlepool (three); Dumfries and Maxwelltown; Annan; Manchester (four); Kingsteignton; Willenhall (three); Moffat; Redhill; Earlswood; Stoke Newington; Stalbridge; South Manchester (three); Micklethwaite; Parkstone; Frinton on Sea; Kilmarnock; Oldham; Brightlingsea; Farnworth; Aberavon; Chorlton on Medlock; Rusholme; Whalley Range; Cubitt Town; Rothesay; Hurst Brook; West Auckland; Cryffe Bank; Howlen le Wear; Amble; Ashington; Wallington (Cambs.); Sidlesham; Lightcliffe; Earlestown (two); Golborne; Ashton in Makerfield; Marlow; Amersham; Winchmore Hill; Flackwell Heath; Lane End; Booker; Downley; Trowbridge (two); North West Ham; Forest Gate; West Ham Lane; Warwick; Leamington; Bideford; Hartlepool; Manaton; Newton Abbot; Farnsfield; Middleton in Teesdale; Westminster; Southend on Sea; Bradford; Lowton; Glasgow (three); Greenheys (two); Haydon (four); Horsley on Tyne; Hanley; Chesterfield; Shirebrook; Glenboig; Bedminster; Newington Botts; Bolton Low Houses; Dacre; Penrith; Alva; Burrill; Steeten; Nantwich; Seaton Delaval; Blackley; Hooley Hill; Cotton Tree; Brimscombe; Clayton le Moors; Tarleton; Mapperley; Ayrshire; Draycott; Penruddock; Watermillock; Croydon (two); Oakridge; Clifton (three); Warlingham; Wisbech; Henderskelf; Walsall; Tulse Hill and West Norwood; Ganthorpe Terrington; Leek; Ogden; Buxton; Glossop; Kenley; Biddulph; Saint Pancras; Looe; Polperro; Salisbury; Heaton Moor; Moss Side; Old Trafford; Reddish; Levenshulme; Ipswich; Great Torrington; Bolton; Tavistock; Hilderstone; Blencowe; Hutton End; Plumpton; Johnley; Stechford; Clifton and Redland; Llanelly; Milnrow; Bethnal Green; Brandon; Hedley Hill Terrace; Clitheroe; Breconshire; Talgarth; Hay: Otley; Mildmay Park; Wolverhampton; Broughton; Cheetham (three); Harthill; Cheetham and Crumpsall; Tottenham; Fishponds; Bristol (two); Clayton le Moors; Norwood; Magor; Foulsyke;
  1044
  Midgeholme; Maentwrog; Crook; Cirencester; Carlisle; Redfield; Aston; Burnley: Chichester; Wellington; Reigate (three); Brighton; Lytham; and Folkingham; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Braintree; Evesham; King's Heath; Bristol (two); and South Hackney; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Trowbridge and Melksham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Salop, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Eton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Burnley; and North Witchford; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  EAST INDIA (ARMY MEMORANDUM).
  Return [presented 6th June] to be printed. [No. 200.]
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report by George Andrew, esquire, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in Scotland on The Gemeindeschulen of Berlin and Charlottenburg [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of Trinity College, Oxford, on 26th February, 1904, amending Statute VI. of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 201.]
  BOARD OF TRADE AND LOCAL, GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed to consider the Position: and Duties of the Board of Trade and; of the Local Government Board [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 25th May, 1904, declaring that George Hockett, Artificer, Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate, through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HARWICH HARBOUR.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of the Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of the 31st March, 1904, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 202.]
  AFRICA, No. 7 (1904).
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence respecting the Administration of the Independent State of the Congo (in continuation of Africa, No. 1, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. (No. 203.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Naval Expenditure of France, Germany and Russia.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty possess information for any years, with regard to the total naval
  1046
  expenditure of France, Germany, or Russia, respectively, including expenditure out of capital, but excluding special war expenditure; for how many years they possess this information; and what has been the expenditure in these three countries in those years.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The information given in the following table is obtained from the published Annual Naval Estimates of the countries mentioned since the year 1889. It is not, however, known what proportion, if any, of this money has been provided out of capital. As the countries referred to have not been at war during these years these figures presumably do not include special war expenditure.
  Naval Expenditure for France, Germany, and Russia for years 1889–1903, inclusive.

  Year.

  France.

  Germany.

  Russia.

  £

  £

  £

  1889

  —

  2,615,205

  4,078,422

  1890

  8,125,929

  3,933,869

  4,268,208

  1891

  9,280,000

  4,210,436

  4,946,170

  1892

  10,079,085

  4,934,775

  5,217,915

  1893

  10,215,576

  3,989,845

  5,484,215

  1894

  10,967,421

  3,696,149

  5,511,435

  1895

  10,724,042

  4,083,966

  5,713,573

  1896

  10,597,256

  4,312,995

  5,953,129

  1897

  10,431,033

  5,876,275

  8,290,217

  1898

  11,988,718

  6,083,874

  9,028,926

  1899

  13,796,037

  6,672,788

  10,606,500

  1900

  12,511,054

  7,472,656

  10,962,601

  1901

  13,107,701

  9,624,956

  11,659,766

  1902

  12,271,948

  10,029,063

  10,667,983

  1903

  12,538,861

  10,252,014

  12,349,567

  Note.—In cases where the actual expenditure is not known the Estimates are given.

  Medical Officer for Durness, Sutherland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether,

  1047
  seeing that the position of parochial medical officer for the parish of Durness, Sutherland, fell vacant in 1898, will he state why Durness is omitted from the Parochial Medical Officers (Scotland) Return, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed by the Local Government Board for Scotland that the Return furnished to them by the Inspector of Poor in August, 1903, stated that the resident medical officership in the parish had never been vacant since 20th July, 1896. On now communicating with the Inspector of Poor the Board learn that the office was vacant in 1898, although the parish was never without a doctor, as the present medical officer was in the parish for weeks before his predecessor left.

  Belgian and Swedish Officers of Turkish Gendarmerie.
  ME. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state under what diplomatic instrument and at what date certain Belgian and Swedish officers were appointed to posts connected with the gendarmerie of European Turkey; the numbers, duties, and respective ranks of such officers; and whether they have been or are likely to be detailed for work in the Adrianople vilayet.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) Two Swedish officers were appointed early in 1903, but their rank was not reported. Four Belgian officers, two lieutenant-colonels and two majors were appointed in August of the same year. The duties of these officers were described as those of inspection and reorganisation of the gendarmerie but the two Swedes seem to have been employed at Uscub during the first few months in revising the regulations. Since the arrival of their Belgian colleagues they have been distributed between Uscub, Monastir, and Salonica.

  European Officers of Macedonian Gendarmerie.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affair whether he can give any further information as to the names and ranks of the European,
  1048
  and in particular of the English, officers of the Macedonian gendarmerie.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The following British Officers are serving with the Macedonian gendarmerie:—

  Major Anley.

  Captain Bonham.

  Lieutenant Stanley Clarke,

  Lieutenant Smyly.

  Lieutenant Hamilton.

  The British Staff Officer attached to-General de Giorgis is Colonel Fairholme.
  The following are the Foreign Staff Officers:—

  General Schostak

  Russia.

  Colonel Albera

  Italy.

  Lieutenant-Colonel Vérand

  France.

  Lieutenant - Colonel Count de Salis

  Austria.

  Major von Alten

  Germany.

  The names of the Foreign Officers serving with the gendarmerie have not been communicated to His Majesty's Government.

  Cost of Military Operations in Somaliland prior to October, 1902.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the total cost of military operations in Somaliland prior to the 1st October, 1902.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The total cost of military operations against the Mullah from 1st April, 1900, to 30th September, 1902, amounts to £73,640.

  Lists of Deaths supplied by Registrars to Weekly Newspapers.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that the registrars of births and deaths have been accustomed to supply the weekly newspapers in country districts and small towns with the lists of deaths registered by them; whether this custom has been recently discontinued, and, if so, by whose orders; and whether he will communicate with the Registrar-General on the subject with a view to the continuance of a custom which gives information to the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am aware that in a certain number of cases lists

  1049
  of deaths have been supplied to the Press by registrars of births and deaths. This, however, has been done in contravention of the regulation on the subject. The Registrar - General has received complaints as to the publication of particulars which may lead to the identification of individuals, and he considers that any such publication tends to make persons unwilling to furnish information for registration purposes, and consequently to impair the reliability of vital statistics. He has recently issued a circular with a view to a strict observance of the regulation in future, and I am not prepared to interfere with his discretion in the matter.

  South African War—Return Relating to Transports.
  MR. BUCHANANTo ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the Return relating to transports in the South African war, that was ordered on 5th August, 1903, will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Return is in the hands of the printers and it is hoped that it will shortly be in the possession of hon. Members. Owing to the complicated nature of the Return and the mass of details, it has been impracticable to finish the work earlier.

  Estate of the late Mrs. Helen Blake.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that a Mrs. Helen Blake (widow of General Robert Dudley Blake) died intestate at South Kensington, London, in 1876, leaving personal and other property to the amount of £140,000, which was taken possession of by the Grown failing direct issue, he can state whether the deceased has left any documents to show her parentage or birthplace; and, if so, where can such documents be seen, or any other documents that would indicate her intention as to the disposal of her property bad she made a will.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) A document was found amongst the papers of the deceased which purported to give the name of her father, but the person named cannot be identified. There is nothing to show her place of birth. It is not the practice to produce documents of the character alluded to in the last part
  1050
  of the Question. No legal claim could be based upon them.

  Suggested Sand Ride in Kensington Gardens.
  LORD CECIL MANNERS: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the space at the disposal of equestrians in the West End parks, by laying out a sand ride or rides in Kensington Gardens.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) This is a matter which has been engaging the attention of the First Commissioner, but he does not think that the proposal would command general approval, and the expenditure necessary to make a ride in Kensington Gardens would be very large. The First Commissioner is, therefore, not prepared to take any step in that direction at present.

  Telephonic Arrangements in Tipperary.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General if it is proposed to include Neuagh in the scheme for affording telephonic accommodation in Tipperary County; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of making arrangements for accommodating this, an assize town and the capital of North Tipperary.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The nearest exchange to Neuagh on the Telephone Trunk Wire System is at Limerick. A trunk line between Limerick and Nenagh would be about twenty-eight miles in length. It does not seem probable that enough support for a telephone exchange could be obtained at Nenagh to justify this costly extension, except under a guarantee of revenue at the usual annual rate of £5 per mile of the trunk line. If, however, the hon. Member can furnish me with I some definite information on this subject I shall by glad to make further inquiry.

  Irish Banks and Inland Revenue.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the circumstances under which the collection and remittance of Inland Revenue moneys paid by traders and others outside a radius of fifty miles from the city of Dublin, and which amount approximately to some £2,500,000 per annum, were placed in the hand of the Provincial Bank of Ireland;

  1051
  what are the regulations under which the business is conducted; what approximately are the weekly balances held on this head by the Provincial Bank, and for how long are the same retained; whether, so far as this branch of revenue is concerned, there is any reason why the system which has for years prevailed in Scotland of each of the large Joint Stock Banks of that country being annually in turn placed in the position of remitters of revenue, should not be adopted in Ireland; whether, under the system now prevailing in Scotland, any difficulty has arisen in the transmission of revenue to the Exchequer; and, if not, whether there is any reason why the Irish; Joint Stock Banks should not be dealt with on the same principle in relation to revenue moneys paid outside a radius of fifty miles from the city of Dublin.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The arrangement with the Provincial Bank of Ireland for the collection and remittance of Inland Revenue from places more than fifty miles from Dublin was made in 1827. At that date the Bank of Ireland and the Provincial; Bank were the only banks which had branches throughout Ireland. The terms of the arrangement with the Provincial Bank were revised in 1895. The revenue is paid daily into the various branches of the Provincial Bank and remitted by them to the Revenue Account; at the Bank of Ireland four times a month. Previous to 1895 remittances were made only once in twelve days. A similar arrangement exists with English banks in the case of certain revenue receipts in England which cannot be remitted through the agents of the Bank; of England. The object of this arrangement is to save the payment of commission to the banks for their services, The weekly balances with the Provincial Bank average about £50,000 and the money remains in the hands of the bank I for one week from the expiration of the week in which it has been received. No difficulty has arisen in Scotland in the transmission of revenue, but the present banking arrangements in Ireland have worked satisfactorily and there would be no advantage, so far as the revenue is concerned, in having the Revenue Accounts kept by a number of banks either in annual rotation or otherwise. I am not, however, satisfied that the present ar-
  1052
  rangement is the best possible, and I propose to look further into the matter.

  Licences for Brewing Homemade Beer.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the licence, if any, required by any person brewing homemade beer; whether any duty is levied on beer so brewed; and whether any such person may employ others to brew such beer upon his own or another person's premises when the beer brewed is required for domestic consumption.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain). The particulars of the charges upon, private brewers are as follows:—

  A.—Exempt from Beer Duty.

  Annual licence duty charged.

  s.

  d.

  (1)The occupier of a house of an annual value not exceeding £8, who brews solely for his own domestic use

  None.

  (2)The occupier of a house of an annual value not exceeding £8, who brews for the consumption of farm labourers in his employ as well as for his own domestic use

  4

  0

  (3)The occupier of a house of an annual value exceeding £8, but not exceeding £10, who brews for his own use or for the consumption of farm labourers in his employ

  4

  0

  (4)The occupier of a house of an annual value exceeding £10, but not exceeding £15, who brews beer solely for his own domestic use

  9

  0

  B.—Charged with Beer Duty.

  (1)The occupier of a house of an annual value exceeding £10, but not exceeding£15, who brews beer for the consumption of labourers in his employ, as well as for his own domestic use

  4

  0

  (2)The occupier of a house of an annual value exceeding £15, who brews for his own consumption or that of labourers in his employ.

  4

  0

  A licensed private brewer may employ-other persons to brew for him on his own premises, or, if he occupies a house of an annual value not exceeding £10 and is not liable to payment of beer duty, on premises gratuitously lent to him by a licensed brewer other than a brewer for sale.

  Russian Influence in Tibet.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, looking to the declaration of Lord Lansdowne and the First Lord of the Treasury that they accept the assurances of Russia that there has been no Russian interference in Tibet, he will state whether the Government are in possession of any information, not contained in the Blue-book, implicating Dorjeff as the authoritative representative of Russia in Tibet.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The statements to which the hon. Member refers represent the views of His Majesty's Government. It would be contrary to the public interest to add anything to them.

  Irish National Education—Examination Papers under the New Programme.
  Mil. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the adoption of the new programme by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, an undertaking was given that the examination papers in each year would be settled by a committee of three experts instead of one examiner as heretofore, and that, notwithstanding this undertaking, since the new programme came into force the papers have been settled by one examiner and not by a committee of three as promised; and, if so, will he take steps to have the undertaking thus given carried out by the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The examination papers for the Easter and July examinations of monitors, candidates for training, King's scholars, etc., are prepared by committees of senior and district inspectors specially selected as experts with the chief inspectors. In the case of subjects such as music, drawing,
  1054
  elementary science, etc., the head organiser of the special branch takes the place of the district inspector. The names of the senior and district inspectors or organiser appear on each question paper.

  Fees due to Teachers for Evening Classes in County Donegal.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland promised school teachers that the fees due to them for evening classes would be paid at the end of each session, he will explain why in certain schools in the county Donegal, although the session ended last January, the fees have not as yet been paid; and will he take steps to have the teachers paid their fees according to arrangement.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There were five evening schools in county Donegal whose session ended with the 31st January. Of these, the capitation grant has been paid in three cases, and in the remaining two payment has been delayed owing to irregularities or non-observance of the requirements of the Commissioners' rules.

  Neglect at Drogheda Mortuary.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if the attention of the Local Government, Board has been called to the fact that a dead body was recently discovered in the morgue at Drogheda which had been left there for two months and upwards; and, if so, will he say who is the authority responsible for this neglect, and what steps will be taken to call the attention of such authority to their duty to prevent a recurrence of such a scandal.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Local Government Board will communicate with the local sanitary authority in respect to this matter.

  Work at Enfield Small Arms Factory.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Secretary of State for War what additions to buildings and plant have been made to the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, since 1890; what

  1055
  number of new service rifles were turned out in 1810–1891; what number it is proposed to turn out this year and next; what number of workmen were employed in 1890–1891, and the average wage of the piece workers; what number of workmen are employed now excepting those preparing new plant; and what is the present average wage of the piece workers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The principal additions to buildings completed or approved are as follows:—New screwing shop, new shop for stock filers, accommodation for manufacture of new rifle, accommodation for conversion of rifles to new pattern, building for reserve of gunstocks, additional electric power. The total estimated cost of these is about £30,000. The principal additions to plant are in connection with the manufacture of the new short pattern rifle and the conversion of rifles to the new pattern, and may be estimated at about £40,000. The number of new service rifles turned out in 1890–91 was 92,127. The exact number of rifles which it is proposed to turn out this year and next cannot at present be stated. The number of workmen employed in 1890–91 was 3,203, and the piece workers earned on an average £1 13s. 7½d. weekly. The number of workmen now employed is 2,638. The work of preparing new plant is completed. The present average earnings of a piece worker may be set at £1 7s. 4½d. weekly. The difference in the average earnings for piece work now as compared with 1890–91 is due to short time.

  Pay of General Officers Commanding-in-Chief.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the pay of the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief in the United Kingdom will be according to rank or whether a fixed salary will be attached to the office; and, if so, what that amount will be.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I would prefer not to make a statement on this particular point until the whole question of the allocation and distribution of the commands has been settled, which I hope will be at an early date.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Loss of Submarine A 1
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the inquiry into the loss of Submarine A 1 has been concluded; and, if so, whether the Report will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY TO THIS ADMIRALTY (Mr. PKETYMAN, Suffolk,): It is not customary to publish the reports of Courts of Inqury, and no reason is seen for departing from the usual practice in this case.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Navy Estimates were last before the House it was by general agreement arranged to postpone the discussion of this matter in consideration of the fact that an inquiry was being held, the results of which would be laid before the House.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I remember no such pledge or suggestion as is referred to in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It was certainly considered desirable that this discussion should be postponed until after the Court of Inquiry, because that would enable the representatives of the Admiralty here to reply with more certainty to any questions that might be raised; but that did not imply a promise of the kind suggested.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Is not the House to have the information?
  MR. PRETYMAN: It is the duty of the Admiralty to give whatever information is necessary.

  Naval Gunnery.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the results of the shooting in His Majesty's ships for the current year will be ascertained, and when such Return will be issued to Parliament.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The Return will be prepared and printed as soon as possible after the receipt of the last Squadron

  1057
  Return. I cannot hold out any hope that it will be in the hands of hon. Members at an earlier period of the year than the last Return, viz., February.

  Malta Dockyard Extension Works
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord to the Admiralty if he can state what progress is now being made with the extension of the dockyard at Malta; and if he can say when the work will be completed.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,): I am glad to say that the contractor for this work is now pushing his operations in a more satisfactory manner, and considerably better progress is being made. It is hoped that the estimated date for completion, viz., 1907–8, will not need revision.

  Army Organisation.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Organisation of the New Command Districts is yet complete; and, if so, whether it will be published as a Parliamentary Paper.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,: The Report is not yet complete. It is not usual to publish Reports of purely Departmental Committees.

  Sales of Government Stores in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to evidence given before the Chief Justice of the Transvaal as to the sale of Government stores by Colonel Morgan of the Army Service Corps; and what action he proposes to take thereon.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: My attention has been drawn to certain statements which have appeared in the public Press, and the General Officer Commanding in South Africa has been requested to forward a report as to their accuracy.

  Compulsory Military Service.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to ask the
  1058
  Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to consider the question of the revival of the Ballot Act for the Militia as an alternative to the proposals of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The detailed proposals of the Commission are at present being carefully considered. There is no present intention of putting in force the Ballot Act for the Militia.

  New Government Powder
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the results of the new Government powder as compared to those of cordite in the years 1901, 1902.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. friend any reply to his Question as all information on this matter is of a confidential nature.

  Discharges of Workmen from Enfield Small Arms Factory.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the resolution passed by the District Council at Enfield, on the 1st June, setting forth the distress prevalent in the district in consequence of the slackness of work at the Royal Small Arms Factory, has been brought to his notice; and if he can say whether the £270,000, which appears in the Ordnance Factory Vote as wages for Enfield, is now being spent; and whether he will put a stop to the discharging of men with from twenty to thirty years service by allowing work which can be done at Enfield to go to private contractors.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): The resolution has been received and is under consideration. As regards the second paragraph, the figure mentioned was a maximum Estimate prepared at an early stage and before the orders for the year were finally settled. The rate of expenditure justified by the orders at present received from all sources is some what less. As regards the last paragraph, the factories have received their fair share of the total orders on the established principle that the resources of the trade as well as those of the Government factories must be utilised.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of rifles as produced by private contract is at least £1 more than the cost of those produced at Enfield, and can he not, in these circumstances, see his way to giving a larger proportion of the work to the Enfield factory, thereby putting an end to the distress which prevails in the district where rates are over 10s. in the £1.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Before the hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether, if the rates, taxes, and other trade charges— fixed charges—at Enfield were dealt with on a fair commercial basis, the cost of the rifle made at Enfield would not be proportionately larger.
  MR. CROOKS: What is the value of the plant and material on which rates are paid at Enfield which are now standing idle?
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: The charges made against the cost of production do not include those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. If they were included, the cost of the rifle as made in the factory and as made by the trade would probably be about identical. The principle which governs the allocation of orders is this—that we must be prepared: in time of peace so to regulate the production that it may be capable of rapid and very large expansion in the emergency of war. Therefore we give orders to the trade and orders to the factory. In answer to the hon. Member for Woolwich, I may say that, that being the accepted principle, it is inevitable that there must be considerable plant and machinery standing idle to be available in the emergency of war.

  Labour Overseers in the Transvaal.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the words "overseer in any capacity other than the management and control of labourers," found in Schedule I. of the Ordinance regulating the employment of Chinese labour in the Transvaal permits Asiatic overseers to direct the management of Asiatic labour in the actual operations of
  1060
  mining work, or whether the words "mine overseer" found in the same schedule covers this restriction and prevents Chinese performing such work.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): Section 9 (a) of the Ordinance, read in conjunction with the first schedule, seems to make it clear that Asiatics are not excluded from acting as overseers for the management and control of labourers in the actual operations of unskilled mining work.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he wished to point out that when the Ordinance was; before the Legislative Council the words "mine overseer" were in the schedule. They had now been taken out. He wanted to know if there was not a distinct undertaking given in the Legislative Council that Chinese would not be entitled to act as overseers.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: As a matter of fact, will the labour of Chinese coolies be supervised by Chinese overseers and not by white men?
  MR. LYTTELTON: Probably the actual gangers—the overseers for the control of unskilled miners—will be Chinese.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that seven or eight different languages are spoken by natives in the South African mines—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been answered, and this is an argument as to what the consequence would be.
  MR. LOUGH: How will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make these new arrangements with regard to management agree with the promises made in the House with regard to the displacement of Europeans?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Agricultural Labour in the Transvaal.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the estimated number

  1061
  of natives in the Transvaal which will be liberated for agricultural purposes from the Witwatersrand mines by the importation of Chinese.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am not able to frame such an estimate.

  Sale of Intoxicants to Chinese Labourers in the South African Mines.
  CAFTAIN ELLICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangement has been arrived at with Lord Milner with regard to the sale of intoxicants to the Chinese labourers who are to be employed in the South African mines.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have not yet received the information from Lord Milner, but expect it shortly.

  Japan and Asiatic Labour in British Columbia.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any protest has been received by His Majesty's Government from the Japanese authorities against the provisions of the Provincial Immigration Act, 1904, of British Columbia; whether he is aware that the Act in question was passed in view of the influx into that province of Asiatic labour, notwithstanding the head tax imposed, and that this influx of Asiatics has been detrimental to white labour; and whether, in view of these facts, no attempt will be made to interfere with the Provincial Immigration Act, 1904, of British Columbia.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am not aware that any protest has been made by the Japanese Government against any legislation of British Columbia this year, aiming at the restriction of Asiatic immigration. The Dominion Government has disallowed similar legislation in recent years partly because of objections raised by the Japanese Government, and partly because it was inconsistent with legislation on immigration passed by the Dominion Parliament. I have not yet seen the text of the 1904 Act referred to, and am not aware what action the Dominion Government proposes to take in regard to it.

  Transvaal Finance.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the High Commissioner for South Africa, at the opening of the Inter-colonial Council of 31st May, 1904, to the effect that the Transvaal was paying its way, and that when compared with Cape Colony and Great Britain their financial troubles were not out of the common; and whether, in view of the fact that the introduction of Chinese indentured labour into the Transvaal was sanctioned on account of the great financial difficulties of the Transvaal, he will consider the advisability of directing that any further importation of such labour should cease now that the grave financial difficulties have been officially declared to be nonexistent.
  MR. LYTTELTON: My attention has been drawn to a telegraphic report which purports to give the substance of Lord Milner's statement on the occasion referred to. I do not agree with the hon. Member if he suggests that the introduction of Chinese labour was sanctioned solely by reason of the financial difficulties of the Transvaal. By stringent reductions in expenditure and by the abandonment for the time being of many most desirable works of development Lord Milner has succeeded in balancing his Estimates for the coming year, but I am not prepared, on that account, to imperil the success of his financial policy by arresting the additional supply of unskilled labour upon which the progress of the Transvaal depends.
  MAJOR SEELY: Is it not a fact that this successful financial situation arose before any Chinese had arrived in South Africa?
  MR. LYTTELTON: No Chinese have arrived at present. As I have already informed my hon. and gallant friend, a stringent reduction of expenditure has produced a balance in the accounts.

  Russian and German Agreement.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Walthamstow Division of

  1063
  Essex, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has information as to an agreement between Russia and Germany, or to the conclusion of an agreement regarding Customs duties; and, if so, will he furnish this House with information as to same.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): I am aware that such statements have appeared in the foreign Press; but I understand that they are without foundation.

  Slavery in Zanzibar.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of Stats for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Commissioner for Pemba, appointed by the Zanzibar Government, has ruled in the Court that all property acquired by a slave, by purchase out of his own money, or by gift, belongs to the slave's master; and, if so, whether, in view of Article 2 of the decree dated 1st Zilluada, 1314, which states that from that date the district Court shall decline to enforce any alleged rights over the body, service, or property of any person on the ground that such person is a slave, he will say what action he has taken or proposes to take in the matter.
  EARL PERCY: The ruling referred to by the hon. Member is probably one given by Mr. J. P. Farler, the Zanzibar Government Slavery Commissioner at Pemba, in the case of an action brought against a freed slave named Mshangama by his former master. By this ruling it was ordered that the slave's property should be taken as part payment of a claim which the master had against him, and it was further expressly stated that in all cases where a servant, before he is freed, has acquired land legitimately the law secures to him his legal right to that property, and his master cannot take it from him. It appears doubtful whether the decree dated 1st Zilluada, 1314, has any real bearing on this particular question, but as the freed slave has appealed against the judgment of Mr. Farler the matter is still Subjudice, and it would not he proper at
  1064
  this stage to make any further comment on the case.

  Anglo-French Agreement regarding Morocco.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communications have passed between His Shereefian Majesty the Sultan of Morocco and His Majesty's Government with regard to the Anglo French Agreement; and if Papers containing these communications will be placed upon the Table.
  *EARL PERCY: No formal communications on the subject have passed between the two Governments.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Agreement between France and Spain with regard to Morocco be laid on the Fable when received.
  *EARL PERCY: We are not aware that the Agreement has been concluded. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down his Question.

  Canadian Immigration Frauds.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called by the Canadian; authorities to the existence in this: country of certain agencies inducing young people to go to Canada under the pretence of educating them in farming or finding employment and charging sums of money in the form of premiums, and to frauds which are constantly being practised; and whether the Government have taken any steps to put an end to the practice where fraud is involved.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I am making inquiry into this matter. It is not a new one; but if the hon. Member has any facts which he can lay before me I shall be glad to have them.

  Intemperance and Lunacy.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return showing the total

  1065
  number of lunatics in the lunatic asylums in the United Kingdom who have lost their reason through excessive use of intoxicating liquor.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The question of the causes to which cases of insanity can be attributed is a very difficult one. It is frequently dealt with in the Annual Reports of the Lunacy Commissioners, which give full information on the subject. In particular, I may refer my hon. friend to pages 9 and 158 to 159 of the last Report for the year 1902.

  Deaths from Phosphorus Poisoning.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case of death from phosphorus poisoning that occurred at the Poplar and Stepney Sick Asylum, due to a recent attack of phossy jaw; and, if so, will he say what steps he intends to take, in view of the fact that the patent used by Messrs. Bryant and May is stated to be innocuous.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: This case has been reported to the Factory Department and carefully investigated by the district and medical inspectors of factories, as well as by the certifying surgeon. There seems to be no doubt that the case was one of phosphorus necrosis, but nothing was elicited by the inquiry or at the inquest showing how or when the disease was contracted. It appeared that the woman who died on the 19th May, 1904, had not worked at Bryant and May's factory since the autumn of 1902, except for one short period of throe days. There does net appear to be any further action that I can take.
  MR. CROOKS: Is it not the fact that this woman had worked there for thirty-four years, and will not the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, make further inquiry.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am aware that she did work there for a number of years, but there war, a considerable interval between that and the appearance of the disease.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: During the three days temporary duty was she on dangerous work?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Not according to my information, which I will, however, verify by further inquiry.

  Shop Hours Bill.
  MR. GALLOWAY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Peckham, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will postpone the Committee stage of the Shop Hours Bill until the opinion of the small shopkeepers on the Bill can be ascertained.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do net think that there is sufficient reason for taking this course. The whole matter— and indeed proposals very similar to those in the Bill—has engaged public attention for a long time now, and the small shopkeepers have had full opportunity of expressing their views. In particular, the Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1901 took evidence on this point and reported that the small shopkeepers were not less anxious than other classes of shopkeepers for legislation that would enable them to shorten their hours of labour.

  London Street Traffic Commission.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say when the Report of the Commission on London Street Traffic will be published.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am informed by the Commission that they have now finished the taking of evidence, and are considering their Report, which they hope to be able to present before the end of the year.
  MR. GALLOWAY: Will there be an opportunity—providing the Report is presented before the end of the session— of discussing it?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I can give no pledge as to that, neither can I promise the Report will be presented before the end of the session.

  Reformatory School Treatment.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of boys there are in reformatory schools in England and Wales; and whether he has any Reports showing what proportion of them benefit by their treatment; and, if so, whether he will lay these Reports upon the Table.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Full information on both the points raised by my hon. friend is contained in the Annual Reports of the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools which are laid before Parliament. I may refer him, for instance, to pages 16 to 19 of the Report for 1902 published last year.
  MR. GALLOWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report for 1903 has not yet been presented? When will it be?
  *MR. AKERS - DOUGLAS: I cannot say.

  Wet Drilling in Mines
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a paper recently read before the Institution of Mining Engineers by Mr. F. Fox, M.I.C.E., and to the discussion thereon reported in Vol. 26 of the Transactions of the Society, and to the statement of this gentleman that, under the present conditions in the mines of England, one out of every five miners working rock drills in advance headings were doomed to die every year from phthisis, and that the dust from dry drillings was the chief cause of this mortality; whether he is aware that during the driving of the Simplon Tunnel, though the tunnel has reached a total length of 10¼ miles, at a depth of 9,630 yards, with a temperature ranging from 97 to 131 degrees Fahrenheit, not a single case of phthisis has occurred, owing to the absence of dry drilling; and if, under these circumstances, he will put into operation the powers he possesses under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, and prohibit the use of mechanical drills operated on the dry system, permitting only the system of wet drilling.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: This is a matter on which a close watch has been kept by my Department; and some time ago I referred it to Dr. Haldane, who, in conjunction with Mr. Martin, an inspector of mines, and Mr. Thomas, manager of Dolcoath Mine, has made a thorough inquiry into it. Their Report has been presented to Parliament and will be issued, I hope, this week. I shall proceed at once to consider the question of proposing special rules to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report

  Careless Sorting at the General Post Office.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will inquire into the frequent complaints concerning careless sorting of newsletters in red covers, addressed to the editors of London newspapers; and whether, seeing that the newspapers pay a fee to have such letters specially sorted in the Saturday night mails, so that they may be available for delivery to their messengers on Sundays, he will take steps to see that the irregularities are discontinued.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I will make inquiry into the matter referred to by the hon. Member, and acquaint him with the result.

  The National Telephone Company and the Post Office.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General when he will be able to acquaint the House with the result of the negotiations now proceeding between the National Telephone Company and the Post Office.
  LORD STANLEY: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on the 6th instant to a Question on this subject.† I repeat that these negotiations must take time, and I will fulfil my promise that nothing shall be done with out first submitting the matter to the House of Commons, and Members will b the earliest to be informed of any result that may be arrived at.
  † See page 797.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will any agreement be submitted to the House before it is finally concluded?
  LORD STANLEY: Most, certainly. A small Committee will report on it, and after that has been done the agreement; and the Report will be submitted to the; House. I cannot say that it will be this session.

  Telegraphic Communication with Iceland and the Faroe Islands.
  MR. DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can inform the House what progress has been made with the negotiations for connecting Iceland, the Islands of Faroe, and Great Britain with telegraphic communication.
  LORD STANLEY: Negotiations are still proceeding, and I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

  Penny Postage to Australia.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state whether an arrangement has been made for penny postage outwards to Australia; and when it will come into operation.
  LORD STANLEY: It has not yet become practicable to extend the penny postage rate to letters for Australia; but the matter has been occupying my attention; and no endeavour shall be wanting on my part to arrive at a satisfactory understanding with the Commonwealth authorities.

  Magazine Postage Bates to and from the Colonies.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any arrangement has been made which will permit magazines to be sent to and from the Colonies at a lower rate than at present; and if he will state whether any such arrangement would entail any loss to his Department; and in that case what would be the estimated loss.
  LORD STANLEY: The only exception to the ordinary rules governing the transmission of magazines between the United Kingdom and her Colonies has been made
  1070
  in the case of Canada, magazines from the Dominion prepaid at the Canadian inland rate of postage being delivered in this country as fully prepaid. There can be no doubt that any reduction of the postage chargeable in this country on magazines for the Colonies would entail loss of revenue to the British Post Office; but the actual amount of such los3 would depend on the amount of the reduction.

  Expenditure by Lighthouse Authorities.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the lighthouse authorities are required to submit all estimates for expenditure, whether for maintenance or new works, in detail, for the approval of the Board of Trade; what course is taken in case any proposed expenditure is disapproved; why the Board of Trade have limited the scope of the Advisory Committee to proposed expenditure on new works; and whether he can extend the powers of that Committee.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative; if proposed expenditure is disapproved it cannot be incurred. The functions of the Advisory Committee have from the first been limited to new works. It is upon such technical matters as the position of new lighthouses or new light vessels that the advice of shipowners is of value to the Board of Trade and the lighthouse authorities. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by extending the scope of the advisory duties of the Committee.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: Is it not the case that ships have been excluded?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We do not regard ships as new works. The appointment of this Committee was an act ex gratia. There was no obligation on the Department to appoint it.

  Harbours of Refuge on the Cornish and Devonshire Coast.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the names of the local authorities which have recently

  1071
  made representations, either to him or to the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to the advisability of the construction of a harbour of refuge on the coast of North Devon or Cornwall. I may also ask the right lion. Gentleman if, having regard to the fact that the Devonshire County Council sit to-mo row, he can make any statement as to the course that ought to be pursued.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Representations have been received from the Cornwall County Council, the Corporations of Bideford and St. Ives, the Urban District Councils of Looe, Northam, Padstow, and Stratton and Bude, the Rural District Councils of Stratton and Barnstaple, and the Parish Council of St. Endellion. In answer to the additional Question, I am afraid I have not quite apprehended its object. I can hardly venture to give advice to the Devonshire County Council, but if any county council or local authority will next year appoint an engineer to report as to the establishment of a harbour, the site and the cost of construction, and if the report is sent to me, I will; submit it to the Harbour Grants Committee for their consideration, even if the conditions laid down by the Treasury are not strictly complied with.

  Lincoln and Scawby Light Railway Scheme.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will sea his way to; facilitate the promotion of a light railway between Lincoln and Scawby, as designed by the Light Railway Commission, and what sum of money he will recommend Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to contribute towards the expense of making the line.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: An Order authorising the construction of a light railway between Lincoln and Scawby was granted by the Light Railway Commissioners in 1899, under the title of the North Lincolnshire Light Railway Order, and became operative on confirmation by the Board of Trade in January, 1900 The powers so granted for the compulsory purchase of laud expired in January, 1903, while the period limited for the
  1072
  completion of works extends to January next. So far as I am aware, the promoters of the scheme have made no exercise of their powers. The Order as submitted to and confirmed by the Board of Trade did not contemplate the grant of financial assistance on the part of the State or the local authorities, and if such assistance is now desired an amending Order would be needed. Should application be made to the Treasury in pursuance of Sections 4 and 5 of the Light Railways Act, 1896, accompanied by full particulars, the Board of Trade would, if consulted, give the matter full consideration; but I am not in a position to make any statement in advance as to the advice I should find myself able to give.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: la the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount required to supplement the subscription by local authorities is a very small one, and does he know that this is one of the widest agricultural districts in the kingdom without railway accommodation.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I can only-say that any proposal for a contribution from public funds must be made in the regular way, and will be considered in due course.

  Illegal Trawling—Sale of Seized Tackle
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether instructions will be issued to destroy all fishing tackle seized on boats illegally trawling instead of re-selling it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In cases of illegal trawling which come within the jurisdiction of the Board, the Department is in a position to apply to the Court for destruction of the forfeited gear, and this application is made in suitable cases, but under the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, the Court has a discretion to order either the destruction or sale of the gear.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of adopting the practice followed in Scotland by which a full price is always obtained for this gear.
  MR. MACVEAGH: And is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the practice obtaining in Ireland the gear is generally purchased back by the trawlers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I can add nothing to the Answer I have given. In suitable cases the Board of Trade do recommend that the gear should be destroyed. The case is one for decision by the Courts.

  Registrars of Deaths and the Press.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Registrar-General has issued a notice to registrars of births and deaths not to supply lists of deaths to the Press; is he aware that the practice of supplying such lists has been working for years; and can he state the reasons given for discontinuing the list.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am aware that in a certain number of cases lists of deaths have been supplied to the Press by registrars of births and deaths. This, however, has been done in contravention of the regulation on the subject. The Registrar-General has received complaints as to the publication of particulars which may lead to the identification of individuals, and he considers that any such publication tends to make persons unwilling to furnish information for registration purposes, and consequently to impair the reliability of vital statistics. He has recently issued a circular with a view to a strict observance of the regulation in future.

  Dog Licence Prosecutions.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how many persons have been fined for keeping dogs without a licence during last year, and from the 1st January to 30th April this year, respectively, and the total amount of fines for each of the two periods; and will he say where the money is brought to account.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I am informed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that it would take some considerable time to extract these particulars from their accounts. The information would hardly be worth the time and trouble spent in obtaining it. The preparation of such a Return seriously disturbs the regular work of a very busy Department. The money is credited to the Local Taxation Account, like the proceeds of the dog licences. The total amount so credited for fines and penalties in connection with the Local Taxation Licences in 1902–3 was £6,815.
  MR. WEIR: I shall take an early opportunity of calling attention to this matter.

  Humanised Calf Lymph in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that the medical officers for the nine parishes in Scotland who applied last year for humanised lymph in preference to glycerinated calf lymph based their preference on the assumption that the former lymph was more potent, will he state whether the Local Government Board for Scotland have taken steps to point out to these officers that statistics show the percentage of successful vaccination with glycerinated calf lymph to be distinctly higher than the percentage of successes with humanised lymph?
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed that the reason given by the medical officers referred to for preferring humanised to glycerinated calf lymph was not that the former was more potent, but that it kept its potency for a longer period. The Local Government Board for Scotland see no reason for directing the attention of these officers to the statistics of relative success of the two varieties of lymph.

  Lymph supplied to the Central Vaccine Institution for Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether Dr. Cadell, as superintendent of vaccination at the new town dispensary, Edinburgh, still

  1075
  collects vaccine lymph from the arms of children vaccinated by him, and thus supplies humanised lymph to the Central Vaccine Institution for Scotland; and, seeing that the last report of the medical superintendent of that institution shows that the percentage of successful vaccination with glycerinated calf lymph is higher than the percentage of success with humanised lymph, will the question of using glycerinated calf lymph for the whole of the work of parochial vaccinators in Scotland be considered, especially having regard to the fact that the use of humanised lymph has been widely condemned?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed that Dr. Cadell still supplies humanised lymph to the Central Vaccine Institution for Scotland. The difference in the percentage of successes between glycerinated calf lymph and humanised lymph does not appear to constitute sufficient ground for ceasing to supply humanised lymph, which is still in demand.

  Cummertrees Parish School.
  MR. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Education Department have sanctioned the building of a new school in Cummertrees parish, and if the Department have withdrawn their approval of the addition to the present school, a plan of which the School Board in the first instance submitted to them; and whether, in this and in similar cases where His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools re quire additional accommodation, involving large capital expenditure, to be provided, the Department will not withold their approval of such expenditure until the new education authorities are constituted under the Education Bill now before the House.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It is not the case that the Department withdrew approval of the addition to the school at first proposed. The School Board at their own instance proposed a new school in place of this addition. The Department cannot undertake to withhold approval of such expenditure pending the constitution of new authorities where, as in the present instance,
  1076
  further school accommodation is urgently required.

  Trinity College Lands Commission
  MR. LONSDALE: I. beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the: Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give the names of the gentlemen who-have been appointed to serve on the Commission to inquire into the questions of Trinity College lands.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSOK,): My right hon. friend hopes to be able to announce the names of the members of the Commission in a few days.

  Labourers (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state-whether it is his intention to proceed with the Labourers (Ireland) Bill; and, if so, can he fix the date for the Second Reading.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, sir. My right hon. friend intends to proceed with the Bill. But he cannot name a date for the Second Reading, which is a matter rather for the Prime Minister.

  Ballinasloe Asylum Medical Staff.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the-Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Committee of the Ballinasloe Asylum have fixed the maximum age of applicants for the position of junior assistant medical officer at 40; whether this is in accordance with the regulations governing such appointments; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in regard to the matter.
  MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. The Asylum Committee was informed, however, that the maximum age limit prescribed by the statutory regulations is thirty-two years, and they have now decided to advertise for candidates possessing the statutory qualifications.

  Dublin Victuallers' Assessment Protest.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a

  1077
  resolution from the Dublin Victuallers Association protesting against the assessments sought to be levied on the members; and, if so, whether he will make inquiries into this complaint with a view to having the assessments made upon a fair basis.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I have received the resolution from the Dublin Victuallers Association to which the hon. Member refers, but this is not a matter in which I can take action. Anyone who is dissatisfied with his assessment has a right of appeal to the Special Commissioners of Taxes, from whose decision a further appeal may be made to the Recorder or County Court Judge, as the case may be, the authority in Dublin being the Recorder, and I am unable to interfere with the ordinary procedure prescribed by the law.

  Materials to be used in building the New College of Science, Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it will be arranged in connection with the construction of the new College of Science, Dublin, by the Board of Works, that Irish stone will be specified for use in building, and that, as far as possible, Irish material shall be used and Irish workmen employed.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: It is not possible at this stage to come to any decision on the subject of the materials to be used in the building of the Royal College of Science, Dublin; but preference will be given to Irish material if it is in all respects equally suitable.

  Irish Legislation.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now say when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill and the Irish Labourers Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am unable at present to fix a date for the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill and the Irish Labourers Bill. I will give full notice of the fixing of a date.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to keep back all Irish legislative business right to the end of the session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it is a question of fairness or unfairness. I am anxious naturally to use to the best advantage the amount of time at the disposal of the House to deal with the legislative work the Government have in hand. Casting my eye back over the legislative work of many years past, I do not think that the Irish Members have much reason to complain.

  Chinese Labour in Rhodesia.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend, in the case of Rhodesia, to depart from the principle, first laid down by the Member for West Birmingham, that Chinese labour should not be introduced into South Africa against the will of the inhabitants; whether he has read the views of Sir Marshall Clarke to the effect that the majority of the people of Rhodesia do not favour the introduction of such labour; and whether he will give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion before sanction is given to the introduction of Chinese into Rhodesia.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government adhere to the general statement of principle to which the hon. Gentleman refers in the earlier part of his Question. No decision has been come to in regard to the introduction of Chinese labour into Rhodesia; but I can give no pledge to the House, for reasons more than once stated, that a special day will be given for the consideration of the subject.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the reason for not giving the House an opportunity was that the same principles applied to Rhodesia that applied to the Transvaal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the principles are the same.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have pointed out in my Question that they are not the same.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has not touched on any question; of principle in his Question, except in the first paragraph, and there I am at one with him.

  War Office Reconstitution Committee's Report.
  *MR. CHAPMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give any date when the House may have the opportunity of discussing the Report of the War Office Reconstitution Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to put down the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for War on a very early Thursday, and I imagine that on that Vote it will be competent to discuss the Report of the Reconstitution Committee.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I assume I the right hon. Gentleman will remember that on three previous occasions he pointed out that the Defence Committee of the Cabinet could not be discussed on that Vote, and that he would have to give another opportunity for its discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but I think we shall have to put down a Supplementary Estimate for the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, because, as the House knows, the Committee has a staff which has not been provided for by this House.

  Volunteer Vote
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to take the Volunteer Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say, but I will give full notice of the Vote, as I cannot now fix a day for its discussion.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: Will it be subsequent to the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for War?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; it will be.
  MR. MCCRAE: Will it be possible before the Vote comes on to make a statement with regard to the decision of the Government as to the Report of the Commission which has just concluded its sittings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it probable that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War will make a very broad and general statement with regard to the military policy of the Government. Whether he will refer in detail to the recent Report of the Commission I cannot now say.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When the Secretary of State for War has made that broad and general statement, which I hope will also be a detailed and comprehensive statement, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to give the House time to digest it before being called upon to discuss it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider whether some arrangement cannot be come to. I think it is a matter in which my right hon. friend near me will be able to make an arrangement satisfactory to the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not suggest that the Government should give a greater amount of time.

  The Penal Servitude Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a long Paper issued by the Home Office respecting the rules and regulations to be made under the Penal Servitude Bill appeared in The Times of to-day, and that it has not yet been placed in the hands of Members and cannot be obtained in the Vote Office, and whether in the circumstances he will proceed with the Bill to-day.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question. I saw what purport to be the rules and regulations in the paper this morning. They were not published by my authority, and I am astonished they should have appeared. I promised that these rules

  1081
  should be published before the Committee stage on the Bill was taken, and I will see that that promise is adhered to.
  MR. LOUGH: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiry as to how this got out, and take some action. Surely the Government will not persist in going on with the order in the circumstances? There is a great question of principle involved, which may affect the judgment of the House.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I really do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The promise given in the House the other day was that the rules should be published before the discussion was taken in Grand Committee. I do not see how what has happened can affect the Motion for committal to the Grand Committee. I regret the incident, because I think that the House of Commons should have all Papers first. I do not see any reason why we should not proceed with the reference to the Grand Committee.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman said he was astonished to find that these new regulations were in the paper. I hope he will not stop at astonishment, but will take some steps to punish those who have committed this offence and to prevent the recurrence of it. We have had so many cases like it.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I must first make inquiry to see how they got there.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Are these the actual rules?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have not yet had time to compare them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask what the general business next week will be, and what particular first-class Bill will be the subject of the debate?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It has been generally expected—and I see no reason for disappointing the expectation—that the Scotch Education Bill will be the
1082
first business, and the Port of London Bill will be taken next. I cannot make any statement at present as to the Supply to be taken on Thursday next week. Friday next week is the last private Members' Friday. With regard to the Supply to be taken to-morrow, in accordance with a request made to me through the authorised channels, I propose to put down the Foreign Office Vote first, the Diplomatic and Consular Vote next, and after that some Votes in Class I. and Reports of Supply.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any peculiar mean a of knowing that the Scotch and Metropolitan Members are the Members least likely to go to Ascot?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that the love of sport is equally diffused over all parts of the House.
DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue the discussion of the Scotch Education Bill de die in diem.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I cannot promise to go on with the Bill through all eternity. If we do not finish it on Monday we shall take it on Tuesday. I think that looking forward for a week is as much as any Leader of the House can be called upon to do.

CHINESE OVERSEERS—MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT REFUSED BY THE SPEAKER.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask whether I am precluded by the notices which stand on the Notice Paper from asking leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the non-fulfilment of the undertaking given by Ministers in this House that the employment of Chinese labourers in South Africa will not lead to the exclusion of English workmen from forms of work hitherto performed by them."
*MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government and others haves suggested that

1083
one of the consequences of the importation of Chinese labour would be the employment of more white men, and that that will not turn out to be the result. That is obviously one of the matters to be discussed on the general question of the desirability of the imortation of Chinese labour, and is covered by the notices on the Paper.
MR. McKENNA: The point is whether a blocking Motion can cover a state of facts that had not arisen at the time it was set down. The point now raised is that as a matter of fact Chinese labourers are asked to do work hitherto done by white labour.
*MR. SPEAKER: Chinese labour whether performed by a foreman or undei a foreman is Chinese labour all the same.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As I understand the question, my hon. friend does not intend to deal with the merits of the question of the importation of Chinese labour, but with the question whether a pledge given by a Minister of the Crown in this House has or has not been fulfilled. I do not think any hon. Member has yet put down a Motion which covers all the breaches of faith on the part of His Majesty's Government.
*MR. SPEAKER: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I have given.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Seventh Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

FOREIGN SHIPS (APPLICATION OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS).
The Select Committee on Foreign Ships (Application of Statutory Requirements) was nominated of, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Crean, Mr. Charles Devlin, Sir William Doxford, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Leverton Harris, Mr. John Johnson, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Charles McArthur, Mr. McKenna, Mr. David Morgan, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Wolff, and Sir James Woodhouse.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

TUBERCULOSIS (ANIMALS) COMPENSATION BILL.
The Select Committee on the Tuberculosis (Animals) Compensation Bill was nominated of, Mr. Barran, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Field, Mr. Ernest Gray, Dr. Hutchinson, Captain Jessel, Mr. Kilbride, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. A. K. Loyd, Mr. Price, Mr. Spear, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Edward Strachey, Sir Mark Stewart, and Mr. Austin Taylor.
Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

ALIENS BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Committee be read and discharged; and that the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
MR. TREVELYANsaid it was curious that a Motion of that nature should be taken as a matter of course by the Government. The Standing Order by which Grand Committees were instituted contained these words—
"Two Standing Committees shall be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating to law and Courts of justice and legal procedure, and to trade, shipping, and manufactures."
If they looked at the character of this Bill they would find that there was absolutely nothing in it which brought it within either of the categories set forth in that Standing Older. It was first proposed, he believed, to send this Bill to the Committee on Trade. For what reason he did not know, but perhaps it was because of the injury it might be alleged to do to shipping. That idea, however, was abandoned, and then

1085
it was proposed to send it to the Committee on Law. When these Grand Committees were instituted Mr. Gladstone explained what was intended by them, and said there was a question as to what was a Law Bill, although every Bill was practically a Law Bill in one sense. He thought, however, that the House would agree—at any rate those who had read the Aliens Bill would agree—that there was absolutely nothing which brought it within the category of a Law Bill. It was a Bill which embodied a great alteration in the public policy of the country. It was a Bill which involved a wide breach of national traditions and in its character it had no more to do with law than had the Home Rule Bill, the Agricultural Rates Bill, or the Anglo-French Convention Bill. It was highly controversial in its character, and he could easily point out in it points of public policy which the House ought to discuss in Committee of the Whole House. He would take care not to say anything on the merits of those points of policy. He proposed only to mention three or four of the chief proposals of the Bill in order that the House might see that they were questions which vitally affected the policy and traditions of the country. First there was the question of the right of asylum; next there was the alleged danger of excluding under the cover of pauperism persons or classes who were, in fact, political refugees coming to this country. There had in the past been in that House hot contests, involving the fate of Governments, on questions relating I to political refugees. That was eminently? a question with which the House should deal, and at the present moment it was a matter of special importance because since the Second Reading of the Bill it had been stated that the Russian Government had been entering into relations with other countries, though, he believed, not with this country, with a view to taking measures to send back anarchists from one country to another when they tried to enter. Therefore, he suggested that this was one of the questions of public policy. The Bill also contained proposals for keeping people out of this country on the ground of pauperism, and pauperism alone. There again the traditional policy which this country had pursued for centuries of permitting people to enter
1086
without inquiring as to their means or position was being interfered with. There were also proposals to give discretionary power to the Secretary of State to order aliens to leave the Kingdom on the representation of a common informer. Was not that also a change of national policy? If it were not, he did not know what would be. Then there were extraordinary and novel proposals to limit the power of residence of aliens in certain districts in London and other towns, a method which was suggested to deal with the grave question of overcrowding. There was evidence of the general interest taken in this Bill to be found in the number of Amendments which had been placed upon the Paper. There were many pages of these Amendments, a large number of which dealt with questions of policy, and he would like to point out to the House the fact that many of those Amendments were put down by hon. Members who were not members of the Grand Committee on Law. As a matter of fact some twenty Members had got Amendments down who were not on that Committee. It might be said that it was open to the Committee of Selection to put some of those Gentlemen on the Committee, and possibly those Gentlemen might be placated by the adoption of that course, but his point was that the number of Amendments proved the general and wide interest felt throughout the House in that question.
There were, he believed, two reasons why the Government wished to send this Bill to the Committee on Law. The first was that the business of the House was becoming somewhat congested. He would, however, like to point out that the congestion of business at the present time was part y due to the fact that the Government were proposing to take in Committee of the Whole House what was practically a non-contentious Bill, namely, the Scotch Education Bill. That Bill was absolutely non-contentious in its main principles. Contention was only likely to arise on points of detail. It was, however, a Bill which would occupy a great deal of time, and which would involve an enormous amount of detailed discussion.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. TREVELYANsaid he did not wish to press the point, but he would like to state shortly what he was leading up to. It was that the Prime Minister had placed himself in this difficulty. He was sending to the Committee on Law a very contentious Bill when there was another Bill which could have been dealt with in a similar manner, and which would have made room for this Aliens Bill but for the fact that the Prime Minister had persistently taken up the line that there should not be a Scotch Committee for specially Scotch business.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That point is quite foreign to the matter under debate.
MR. TREVELYANsaid he would not pursue the matter further. His point was that the chief reason why this Bill ought to be kept in the House of Commons was that it was one of a highly contentious character, and he thought that there could be no doubt whatever that the tradition of the House in regard to the question of Standing Committees was that no Bills of a contentious character should be sent to them. He would like to quote a passage from a speech by Sir Henry James on the night of the 17th April, 1894, describing the conditions under which these Grand Committees were instituted. In that speech it was laid down that the Bills remitted to these Grand Committees should be always of a non-contentious character. He would also like to refer to a speech made in 1882 by Mr. W. H. Smith, who laid down a similar doctrine. If he were not mistaken this Aliens Bill was referred to in the Speech from the Throne, and, therefore, it was presumably one of the leading Bills of the Government. He could not understand the action of the Government in this matter unless their desire was to get rid of opportunities for further discussion in that House. They were apparently afraid of more serious criticism. It must not be forgotten that during the Second Reading debate an uncomfortable discovery was made when it was found that the Home Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, had exaggerated and had multiplied by ten the number of aliens coming into this country.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKEKS-DOUGLAS,)said he explained and corrected that error at the time, and he quite understood that the hon. Member accepted his explanation.
MR. TREVELYANsaid that that was so, but his point was that the Government having once been convicted of an exaggerated statement, although they were delighted that the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged his error, they felt that there was still danger that further debate might expose other exaggerations, and they believed that it was to avoid such exposure that this course was taken.
MR. LOUGHsaid that i the proposal to send this Bill to a Grand Committee was one of the most outrageous he had ever heard, and he thought the very construction of the Motion which was in the hands of the Speaker would show the desirability of dealing in the House itself with a Bill of that kind. Undoubtedly it was the original intention of the Government to deal with this matter in the House. It could not be forgotten that the Bill was the first one mentioned in His Majesty's Speech, and, therefore, presumably, it was the most important measure in the programme of the Government for the present year. What, then, were the reasons for the extraordinary change of policy which the Government had adopted in regard to the Bill? It was almost an open secret that since the discussion upon the Second Reading difficulties had been, growing, and naturally the Government were desirous of hustling the Bill through by means of a Grand Committee so as to avoid discussion, because they feared that if it were dealt with in Committee of the Whole House it would be rejected almost instantaneously. Since the Second Reading debate a most distinguished representative of the Home Office, Sir Kenelm Digby, Permanent Secretary of the Home Office and an important member of the Royal Commission, upon whose Report the Bill was founded, had been writing letters upon the subject and when they had so distinguished an authority as Sir Kenelm Digby taking up the position he

1089
did, it was not desirable that the Bill should be hustled through by means of a Grand Committee. He believed it was because the Government had realised the increasing difficulty of dealing with this question that they had resolved to take a different course in regard to the Bill than that which was at first intended. It was generally admitted that Grand Committees were not well suited to deal with very contentious matters which raised new principles. He could assure the Government that every clause of this Bill would require very careful consideration, and that points of much greater importance were involved in it than the House at first realised. They had an attempt last year to deal with the subject on some trifling lines when they were dealing with criminal or destitute aliens.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing the Bill.
MR. LOUGHsaid he was, of course, prepared absolutely to obey the rulings of the Chair, but he was trying to suggest reasons why the Bill should not be sent to the Grand Committee, and he wanted to point out that it proposed to set up a system of passports in this a country which did not distinguish between foreigners and colonists. It was an extraordinary thing that the Government should attempt to send a Bill of such far-reaching importance to a Grand Committee. For instance, there was Clause 4, which set up what he might call congested districts, and which enabled the Local Government Board by Order in Council without the consent of Parliament to declare the number of people who should be allowed to live in a particular district. Surely that was very far-reaching.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is quite irregular to discuss these details.
MR. LOUGHsaid he would not pursue the argument further, but he must say he thought it would be better if the Government would stick to their original intention and have the Bill discussed in Committee of the Whole House. He regretted that no attempt had been made by anyone representing the Government to explain the reasons why they had made this proposal.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he entirely agreed with the principles in reference to Standing Committees laid down by the hon. Member for the Elland Division, but he did not find the hon. Gentleman always acted up to those principles, as, for instance, in reference to the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. He wished to address himself to the point as to whether this was a proper Bill to go to a Grand Committee or not. It appeared to him that the? House must make a rule in these matters. They must either regularly refuse to send any contentious Bills to Grand Committees or not, because if they sent one they could not in reason refuse to send another. He had referred to the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill.
Mr. DALZIEL: That war, a private Member's Bill.
MR. GALLOWAYasked if it were intended by that to be suggested that the principle to be observed was that the contentious bills introduced by private Members could be sent to a Grand Committee but if they were introduced by the Government they could not. That was, he was sure, a form of argument which the House would never accept. He thought the House would be very ill advised if it once began to draw such a distinction between private Members and members of the Government. All Members, so far as the House was concerned, had always been treated as having equal rights, and he should be sorry to see anything done which would detract from or minimise that custom. This Bill did not appear to him to be any more contentious than many other Bills which had already been sent to Grand Committees. He objected to Bills being sent to Grand Committees at all, because when he first came into the House his attention was drawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet to the effect of this procedure, and he was convinced that the system was a pernicious one. If, however, objection was taken to the reference of this particular Bill to a Grand Committee because it was not a private Member's Bill, he would remind the House that in 1894 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife moved that the Employers Liability Bill should be sent to a Grand Committee. The Employers

1091
Liability Bill was as contentious as this, Bill, and he failed to see on what principle I they should refuse to send the Bill to a Grand Committee.
MR. ASQUITH: The Employers Liability Bill was not a contentious Bill.
MR. GALLOWAY: If the right hon. Gentleman will carry his memory back to the discussions he conducted with very great ability, I think he will admit that it was a contentious Bill.
MR. ASQUITH: It had one contentious clause, but the whole of the rest of the Bill was accepted by the House.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid the right hon. Gentleman was in an illogical position if, having made that admission, he objected to contentious Bills being sent to Grand Committees. He expressed regret that the Government had changed their proposal. The Motion originally in the name of the Home Secretary was to refer this Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade, but the Motion on the Paper was to send it to the Grand Committee on Law. His right hon. friend the Member for North East Manchester said that one Committee was busy and the other was not. That might be true, but he did not admit the contention so far as the present state of business was concerned. They ought not to decide whether a Bill should go to one Committee or another according to the state of business in those Committees. The way they ought to decide it was clearly laid down in the Standing Orders, namely, that certain Bills should be sent to one Committee and certain Bills of another class should be sent to the other Committee. This did not appear to him to be a Bill to refer to the Grand Committee on Law. The other Bills relating to the same Department, namely, the Home Office, were before the Standing Committee on Trade, and if the Aliens Bill were sent to the Grand Committee on Law it would be difficult for the Home Secretary to attend both Committees.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know that the question as between the Committee on Trade and the Committee on Law is one of great importance. I think they have
1092
become very much mixed in the course of our transactions for many years, and I suspect if the hon. Gentleman who has spoken just now had the advantage of consulting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, from whom he originally derived his opinions on the subject, he would find that that right hon. Gentleman does not care a straw which of the two Committees you send the Bill to, he dislikes them both so much. I very much agree with my hon. friends behind me, and I see reasons why this Bill should not be sent to a Committee upstairs, but should be dealt with before the Committee of the Whole House. We have received from the Government as yet no reason whatever why this Bill should be dealt with in an exceptional way. My friends who have spoken in favour of keeping it in the House have dwelt especially upon the contentious nature of the measure. The words contentious and non-contentious are rather ambiguous. What do you mean by non-contentious in regard to a Bill? Such a thing does not exist. If you mean a Bill that nobody in any corner of the House has the slightest objection to, it must be a very remarkable Bill, a somewhat ingenious Bill, and probably it would be a very worthless Bill if some fault cannot be found with it by somebody or other. But that is not what is meant, as I understand. What is meant, and what we should call a non-contentious measure, is one which does not raise any great division of opinion in the House and which is accepted on its main stages by the great body of the House, and although there might be, as in the case of the Employers Liability Bill, here a clause and there a clause which creates controversy, the rest of the Bill being to the taste of the House, it may very well be treated as a non-contentious Bill. But this Bill is very much more than a contentious Bill. Not only is it very bitterly and keenly opposed and resented Ion practical, sentimental, and historical grounds by many of us, but it is also a Bill which introduces a new constitutional practice and principle. We are now going for the first time—it may be right to do it, or it may be wrong—to set up a great, elaborate, and deliberate system of keeping foreigners of a certain kind out of the country. Well, that is surely a

1093
departure from our ordinary practice, a departure from the traditions and from the general and historical attitude of this country, and on that ground, apart from the fact of the people being divided in opinion about it, it ought to be kept before the House, und the detailed provisions of it ought to be discussed before the people in the light of day and not in a room upstairs. That is the main ground on which I entirely agree with those who say that the ordinary course should be followed. Whether it will save time is another question altogether. There is no Bill before the House this session which has a more distinctly revolutionary principle in it than this Bill. None, And it is to be treated as if it were of no account at all and sent to be dealt with by a Grand Committee as if it were some little Bill about local government, or a trade bill about the general provisions of which opinion both in the House and out of it was agreed. That is the ground on which it seems to me it ought to be kept in the House, and I hope the Government will yet agree to do this, because from the very fact that they have shown reluctance hitherto to indicate any reason for taking another course, I fancy that they cannot have a very strong opinion on the subject themselves. If they put aside the mere question of the convenience of business, which may or may not be of force, on the merit of the question as to the nature of the Bill I would ask is this not distinctly out of the category of Bills which can be dealt with in that way, and is the country outside not entitled to have it discussed in all its details with the greatest publicity and in the fullest way so that every Member, whether he be a trade Member or a lawyer, shall have an opportunity of expressing his opinion upon it?
*MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The right hon. Gentleman who hag just addressed the House has described this Bill as one of great controversy and great contention. I confess that is rather news to me considering the tone which prevailed during the Second Reading discussion on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill on the Second Reading in a most able and most
1094
moderate speech said that, while it was a measure to which he himself was opposed, he had little doubt that the assent of this House would be given to it—[OPPOSITION cries of "No"]—and I think it is too late to say that this Bill is one which is looked upon by the House or the country as a measure of very great contention. The Second Reading of the measure was carried by a very large majority in this House. The Bill was passed with the support of a number of hon. Members opposite, and of certain right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that it is very difficult to define what is a contentious measure, but this Bill does not provoke anything like the unanimous opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite, while it receives unanimous support on the Ministerial side of the House. The class of Bill especially suitable for consideration in Grand Committee is one which contains one important question of principle, and the rest of which is taken up with provisions for the application of that principle. The Aliens Bill is of that nature. Its principle is the exclusion from, or the regulation of, the admission to this country of undesirable aliens, and that has been accepted by a majority of 124. It now only remains to define what classes of undesirable aliens should be excluded, and to provide the machinery for that exclusion, or for the regulations if we are to admit them to this country.
Some allusion has been made by the hon. Member for Islington to Amendments on the Paper which, he says, are very largely against the principle of the Bill. But I am bound to say that in looking at these Amendments I cannot come to the same conclusion. None of the Amendments on the Paper are opposed to the principle of the Bill, and only one proposes the omission of a clause: that dealing with the congested districts. Bills of equal magnitude have before now been sent to the Grand Committees, among them the Employers Liability Bill, which was most contentious in one clause, involving an absolutely new principle; the Prisons Bill, the Habitual Inebriates Bill, both of these dealing with questions of personal liberty; and the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill. Really I can see very little difference between this Bill and those Bills

1095
The hon. Member opposite said that this Bill is extremely controversial both in this House and the country. Well, that is certainly not my impression from the resolutions which have reached me on this question. It is true there have been certain resolutions connected with two questions dealt with in the Bill, in both of which pointed out on the Second Reading there was a misunderstanding. There was first of all the question of political refugees, and I have already given assurances that there is no intention to exclude that class of aliens, and we will accept an Amendment to that effect.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: You cannot do that.
*MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I venture to say that it is perfectly easy to so arrange an Amendment as to make our intention on that matter perfectly clear. Some hon. Members have said that the Government are sending this Bill to the Grand Committee more as a question of expediency because we find that the state of business in the House is such that a Bill of this character would not be likely to pass through Committee of the Whole House at so late a period of the session. Well, there is no doubt that this Bill will receive much better attention in Grand Committee. All points of detail will be there thoroughly thrashed out; and it will afterwards come before the House at a later stage, as amended, for further discussion. There has been no change in the intention of the Government. We have always believed that this Bill should and could properly be referred to a Grand Committee. The division on the Second Reading was not taken till midnight, and there was no opportunity of moving that it be remitted to the Grand Committee on Law.
MR. DALZIEL: It was the Grand Committee on Trade, not on Law.
*MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, it was the Grand Committee on Trade, but at present I point out that the issue now before the House is not whether it should go to the Grand Committee on Trade or Law, but whether it should go upstairs. I trust that the House will agree to refer
1096
the Bill to the Committee on Law, and I am quite certain that those who wish to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on this question will do far better to vote for its reference upstairs than to keep it for Committee of the Whole House, because it will be more thoroughly considered there than here.
MR. ASQUITH: It has been admitted that upon a Motion of this kind we cannot enter in any degree into the details of the measure. But at the same time there are always two questions to be borne in mind when it is proposed to withdraw a Bill from Committee of the Whole House to a Committee upstairs. These are: what is the nature of the measure itself, and what is the character of the precedent about to be set for those who come afterwards. Whether the one test or the other is applied, this is pre-eminently a Bill over which the House ought to retain its own complete and undelegated jurisdiction. If the controversial character of a measure were to be measured by the size of the majority in its favour, it is only necessary to have a Ministerial majority large and docile enough to remove every measure from the arena of controversy. Every argument that can be used in favour of referring this Bill to a Standing Committee might be used with equal plausibility in favour of referring the Licensing Bill to a Standing Committee, and even the Government has not advanced as far as that. The procedure on the Employers Liability Bill has been quoted as a precedent justifying the action of the Government, but the Second Reading of that Bill had been carried without a division. When the Motion was made for the reference of the Bill to the Standing Committee, the present Prime Minister made a very half-hearted protest, arguing that the Bill ought rather to go to a Select Committee. "We are all desirous that a Bill on this subject should pass," the right hon. Gentleman had said. The Motion of reference was carried without a division, yet so strong was the feeling against it that a large number of Gentleman on the opposite side refused to take any part in the proceedings of the Grand Committee, and insisted on re-discussing every point on Report. The case is therefore entirely different from that of the present Bill. The Home Secretary said

1097
that no one has put down an Amendment for the omission of a clause. I am sorry to hear it, and I shall immediately proceed to put down such Amendments. There is not a single clause of the Bill which does not bristle with contentious matter. It introduces not only an innovation, but a revolution of the traditions and precedents which have hitherto governed the legislation and administration of this country in regard to the admission of foreigners. It is an abuse of language to compare this Bill with any of the measures which the Home Secretary has mentioned.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the onus for making out a case for the withdrawal of the Bill from the ordinary procedure of this House rested with the Government. He was not concerned to debate the respective merits of the Grand Committee on Law or the Grand Committee on Trade. To whichever Committee the Bill was referred it would constitute an undesirable precedent. Let the House consider the enormous advantage to be derived from a discussion in Committee of the Whole House. Every kind of question arose and was answered; questions were submitted from different aspects; and Members were allowed to make more than one speech. When a Bill was sent to a Grand Committee and brought down again to this House, a Member was only allowed to make one speech on Report. That was a very serious injury to the future of a Bill. Every hon. Member who had assisted in passing a Bill through the ordinary Committee of the House knew that from some unexpected quarter most valuable suggestions were often advanced, and were adopted by the Minister in charge of the Bill. When a Bill was sent to a Grand Committee, seven-eighths of the House were suppressed and withdrawn from the Committee on the Bill; and the consequence was that there was only one-eighth of the chance of good suggestions being offered for the improvement of the Bill. What justification did the Home Secretary give for this Motion? He said, first of all, that the principle of the Bill was accepted, and that it only remained to define the conditions under which aliens were to be admitted or excluded. That was exactly the kind of work in which the House of Commons did ten times as well as any
1098
Standing Committee. It was in Committee of the Whole House that the opportunity arose for making suggestions which often proceeded from hon. Members who were hardly expected to speak on the Bill at all. Then the Home Secretary said that the Bill would receive much better attention in the Grand Committee than in this House. On what did the right hon. Gentleman found that? He maintained it was entirely contrary to the experience of the House. He had some experience of the House; and he knew perfectly well that in Committee of the Whole House a Bill of this character would be certain to receive the most careful attention. The right hon. Gentleman, however, at last betrayed his real reason. He said that if they sent the Bill up to the Grand Committee it would have a greater chance of passing. But the great object of this House was debate. This was a Parliament House, and it was better that they should debate and discuss a Bill thoroughly and not pass it, than pass it without having debated it thoroughly. The great object of the Home Secretary was to get the Bill passed anyhow or somehow; and he had really the assurance to say that it was better that it should be considered upstairs than in this House.
This was undoubtedly a very important Bill. It would reverse the whole of the conditions of the country, and rescind and break through the laws of hospitality which they had always extended to the poor and oppressed of every country; and from the exercise of which they themselves had received benefit. Every oppressed man that came to this country brought something that had added to its security, its industry, and its reputation. It was something to know that this was the one land in all the world where the oppressed might find a refuge. Whether it was necessary or advisable to alter those laws he did not pretend to say. The Bill proposed the adoption of conditions which were known in Continental countries, and which were not perhaps a credit to them. It was a contentious measure; and the House should not allow it to be withdrawn from full discussion, in exchange for a miserable and inferior discussion upstairs where there would not be the facilities and convenient circumstances which attached to a

1099
Committee of the Whole House. He himself considered Standing Committees to be most improper bodies to have been set up in this Parliament at all. They were usurpations, and every Bill referred to them was a Bill really withdrawn from proper debate in Parliament, for which this House existed. Under these circumstances he would be bound to vote against the Motion.
MR. McKENNAsaid that whatever decision the House might come to on this Motion, every hon. Member would agree that it was highly desirable that there should be some consistency in the principle on which Bills were sent to Grand Committees. He had endeavoured to form his opinion on this subject on the best models; and he naturally turned to the Prime Minister, and to the views expressed by him on previous occasions, in order to come to a judgment on this Motion. The Prime Minister had, in and out of office, declared himself upon this subject with the greatest consistency. In 1894, on the Motion to send the Employers Liability Bill to a Grand Committee the Prime Minister expressed himself with the greatest clearness. In dealing with the principle on which a Bill should be sent to a Grand Committee he said that if any large section of the House were not satisfied with the consideration of the Grand Committee, it was in their power to raise on Report all the questions which could be raised in Committee of the Whole House, and that, therefore, if reference to a Grand Committee did not meet with general assent, no real saving of time was effected in attempting to avoid the Committee stage. The Prime Minister did not, however, cover the whole ground. It was not only that there would be no saving of time in this House by sending contentious Bills to a Grand Committee, but also that the time of the Grand Committee would be wasted, months being perhaps occupied to the exclusion of other Bills which could be satisfactorily dealt with by a Grand Committee. When a contentious Bill was sent back to the House they would have to go through the whole business of debating it in detail, and nothing would have been saved. They had had recent experience of what might happen in a
1100
Grand Committee when there was determined opposition to the principle of a measure. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had shown that a Bill could be more effectively destroyed in Grand Committee where there was no closure, than it could be destroyed in Committee of the Whole House. He would refer the First Lord of the Treasury to the views he expressed in 1894; and, on that ground, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was out of court in proposing to send this Bill to a Grand Committee. But that was not all. The First Lord of the Treasury again expressed his opinion on the subject, not, as on the former occasion, when he was in opposition, but when he was responsible for the conduct of business in this House. He would refer to an Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to a Question on the 6th February, 1902. He was asked if he would provide facilities for the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill; and he replied—
"Grand Committees were intended for Bills of great detail and of no great controversial character."
Then he went on to say that this was a Bill of no great detail but which excited very vehement feelings on both sides of the House and also in the country; feelings, however, which he did not share. Still the Prime Minister recognised that a Bill of great controversial character which excited feeling in the country, ought not to be sent to a Grand Committee. It could not be suggested that the Prime Minister would put forward such an argument as that because of the mere expediency of the moment, and without any real subtantial belief in the principle he was stating. He would suggest to the Prime Minister that in the view he then stated he was genuinely expressing his opinion as to the principle on which a controversial Bill should or should not be sent to a Grand Committee. That was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion: two years ago. Had he changed his opinion now; and, if so, would he give the House the reason why? He submitted that unless the right hon. Gentleman could give the House satisfactory reasons for his change of mind he ought not to press this Motion. If he did press the Motion, and did not give any satisfactory reasons, they would be forced to the conclusion that the Prime Minister,

1101
in the conduct of business in this House, was occasionally driven to use various arguments for the purposes of expediency, and not to express his genuine feelings as to what was desirable.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was glad the Prime Minister was present for two reasons. He thought, at this stage of the debate, they were entitled to the leadership of the Leader of the House. This was not a Departmental matter to be left to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. It was a question of the highest importance—namely, the principle on which the House should delegate its business to its own Committees. On a former occasion, the Prime Minister laid down what he believed to be the correct rule for the guidance of the House in such cases as this. No allusion had been made to the rule laid down by the Prime Minister in 1895, when this question was elaborately discussed in connection with the proposal to refer a certain class of business to the Scottish Standing Committee. The Scottish Standing Committee was treated as an ordinary Grand Committee, and the rule which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury then laid down as Leader of the Opposition was in terms applied to all Grand Committees. The right hon. Gentleman then said—
"While I express general concurrence with the views of my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, I repeat that neither his plan nor any plan is possible, if once controversial Bills are to be referred to these Grand Committees. Would the Government dare to refer to an English Committee reflecting the value of opinion in this House the discussion of such a measure as the Local Veto Bill. I do not think so. It would knock the Committee to pieces and discredit the whole system of Grand Committees."
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
"How are we to distinguish between controversial and non-controversial measures?"
and proceeded to give an example in the Crofters Bill, and asked whether that was a Bill that should be sent before a Grand Committee. Yet the Crofters BUI of 1895 passed its First Reading without opposition and almost without debate. It was between the First and Second Reading that the right hon. Gentleman took objection to its being sent to a
1102
Grand Committee. But that measure passed its Second Reading without a division. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House now, how he could in the year 1904 propose to refer such a Bill as that now under discussion, approved as it had been, to a Grand Committee when he refused to allow a Bill which had passed through its intermediate stages to go to a Grand Committee in 1895. As this was the last occasion upon which the right hon. Gentleman laid down so elaborately this principle he would quote one more sentence. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
"I have no objection—…to the setting up of any number of Grand Committees provided you do not interfere with the general work of this House and no controversial business is submitted to them. Till those conditions are fulfilled I shall look with suspicion upon and I shall oppose any proposal for dealing in the manner suggested by the Government with this vast issue. I beg hon. Members who are interested in the work of this House and are anxious for its future success to watch with great suspicion the beginning of a movement which, unless safeguarded at every turn, may end in bringing the whole machinery of Grand Committees into hopeless disrepute"
It was impossible to reconcile the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion with the line he now desired to pursue, and he respectfully asked him to explain what had taken place since, what difference had there been, to justify him in taking the action he proposed.
MR. RUNCIMANspoke of the Bill as a most important measure, in that it affected the interests of the largest seaports, interfered with the immigration regulations and plunged into matters of international policy of the very gravest kind. Although Clause 8 provided that the Home Secretary should have due regard to any obligations and treaties which already existed, the Bill would involve great risks. They had known international troubles to spring from smaller matters in the past. To his mind the measure was not one which ought to be referred to a Grand Committee; it should be dealt with in Committee of the Whole House. The Bill really covered such immense interests that he doubted whether the Grand Committee on Law was really equipped to deal with it. On a former occasion the right j hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had

1103
argued that the reference of controversial Bills to Grand Committees would knock the whole system to pieces. How could he reconcile his declaration on that occasion to his present attitude? He (Mr. Runciman) was opposed to the Bill going to the Grand Committee on Law, for one reason, because it dealt with matters which ought only to be dealt with in Committee of the Whole House; and, for another, because he had so much respect for the work of the Grand Committees that he felt they should not have work cast upon them which was likely to bring them into disrepute.
*MR. JOHN ELLISexpressed the opinion that they were entitled to the presence of the right hon. Gentleman on an occasion of this importance, and said it was very unusual, unless he was occupied with very high work outside, for the Leader of the House when his words had been quoted at such length to absent himself in this way. All who had listened to this interesting discussion with an open mind must come to two conclusions. First, that they must be very careful indeed as to what Bills were sent to the Committees upstairs, and second, that this Bill was a most unsuitable one to send to a Grand Committee. He had recently read the Bill again and all the Amendments, and he was aghast when he found it was intended to send it to a Grand Committee. This House ought to retain within its hands all Bills raising great issues of public policy. Although, as had been seen that afternoon, there were Members wholly opposed to the system of Grand Committees he held strongly that they were very useful portions of the machinery of the House. His opinion was that more useful portions of their machinery did not exist than these Committees if properly used, but that nothing that raised great political issues should go before them. Whether or not a Bill was contentious depended not upon the number of clauses it contained but upon the contents of those clauses. He remembered a few years ago a long and complicated measure dealing with railway rates being sent to a Grand Committee. There was no difference as to principle, but the Bill involved a great mass of detail. The Grand Committee was an admirable tribunal for dealing with such a measure;
1104
it was considered by gentlemen possessing technical knowledge and skill, and the proposals were satisfactorily threshed out. But too many Bills of a different nature—Bills short, it might be, but raising vital matters and warm controversy—had been sent to Grand Committees of recent I years. Further the Leader of the House was responsible, and the result was that the time of those Committees had been largely wasted. There had I been sometimes a difficulty even in securing a quorum, so certain was it that the Bill would go no further. I He mentioned that fact to show the injury that was being done to the most I efficient instrument in the procedure of Parliament for the promotion of legislation. Of Bills of a particular kind he desired to see more sent to Grand Committees, but he thought that the Home Secretary, if he bore in mind his own experience in Grand Committee and if he took to heart some of the statements which had been made or quoted in the course of the debate, would come to the conclusion that this Bill was not a suitable measure to be so dealt with.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEspeaking as one who had for several years acted as one of the Chairmen of the Grand Committee on Law, said that, while he had no desire to discuss the details of the Bill, he was placed in a position of some difficulty by reason of the fact that the Home Secretary himself had made the exceedingly important and almost controversial announcement that he intended to introduce important Amendments into the Bill. He would have liked a clearer statement on that matter. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had already made such a statement, but certainly he personally had not the faintest recollection of it.
*MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: What I said was in reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean on the Second Reading, with regard to political refugees, that it would be a point for the Committee.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid that was merely a generality of which the House would like to know the exact

1105
meaning. The proposal to refer this Bill to a Grand Committee was the last and the gravest step in a lengthy series of innovations which the present Government had been carrying out in the treatment of the Grand Committees. The ordinary course of business was that a Bill should be considered by a Committee of the Whole House, but the Standing Orders allowed an exception to be made under certain circumstances, and it was for those who proposed the exception to prove their case. The House had reason to complain of the shilly-shallying of the Government in having first of all led them to believe the Bill would be considered in Committee of the Whole House, and then in having delayed in making their choice between the Grand Committee on Law and the Grand Committee on Trade. As to the class of Bills that should be sent upstairs, having been a Member of the House in 1882 when these Committees were established, he knew perfectly well what were the intentions of Mr. Gladstone, of the framers of the Standing Orders, and of the authorities upon the business of the House. The original intention was that these Committees should consider measures connected with the improvement and consolidation of the law. The Statute Law Commissioners at that time were engaged in the great work of improving and consolidating large branches of the law, and it was supposed that that work would be facilitated by the establishment of these Committees, to whom would be sent Consolidation Bills involving much detail and requiring careful consideration, but arousing no controversy. That, however, was the one use to which the Government had never put these Committees. He was far from saying that none of the Bills which had been sent were proper Bills to go to the Grand Committee on Law, nor could he agree that no controversial Bills had ever gone to the Grand Committees. The present proposal was only an extension of bad precedent set when a most controversial liquor Bill was referred to a Grand Committee; the Bill consisted of seventeen lines, and there were seventeen pages of Amendments. The result of such a course of procedure was to discredit the Committee and to place in a most difficult position the Chairman, who naturally could not claim the high au-
1106
thority vested in Mr. Speaker. In the case of the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, the closure had constantly to be applied and the atmosphere of the Committee Room closely resembled that of the House when a great controversial Bill was under consideration. The clauses of the Aliens Bill bristled with controversial matters; the measure, as a whole, struck a deadly blow at the great right of asylum by which men flying from persecution, political, civil, or religious, had been able to take refuge in this country unmolested; and for these reasons he protested against the Bill being smuggled out of the House by a dishonest use of a procedure intended for totally different purposes.
*MR. NORMANsaid it was admitted that the question of the propriety of the Bill going upstairs would be decided in each Member's mind by whether or not a Member desired the measure rapidly to pass into law, and that desire would naturally depend upon one's view of the Bill itself. Personally he had great sympathy with much that was in the Bill; but before he could do anything to expedite its passage he would require strong assurances with regard to the safeguarding of the right of political asylum, and that the reference should not be to an individual but to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, as recommended by the Royal Commission, of the question of who should and who should not be admitted into the country. But the even more important matter of the time-honoured procedure of this House was involved, and after the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, he felt that he could not for a moment contemplate voting for the Motion. If any further argument on that point were necessary, it would have been supplied by the absolutely conclusive extract from the speech of the Prime Minister read by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. The Bill was the Bill of the Government; the responsibility of finding adequate time for debate rested with them, and he could not assist them in laying aside responsibility for enabling the fullest and freest public discussion to take place.
MR. TENNANTagreed with the Home Secretary that the question 1 under discussion was not as to which of

1107
the Grand Committees the Bill should be referred; the real question was whether or not this was a controversial measure. The Home Secretary had expressed his surprise that it should be so regarded. Apart altogether from the action of this House, officials representing the right hon. Gentleman's own Department had admitted that the matter was one of great, if not insurmountable, difficulty. Sir Kenelm Digby had stated that no more serious injury could be done to a public Department than to impose upon it duties it could not perform. The Bill contained provisions which the Home Office were to administer, and yet the man who knew more about that Department than probably any other human being had said that it was almost impossible for any public Department to administer those provisions. He desired to see the Grand Committees fostered and strengthened in every possible way; they had done excellent work in the past; but they would not be strengthened by having such Bills sent up to them. What constantly happened was that a minority of the Committee attended, members specially interested discussed the questions, and then when the mature judgment of the Committee had been expressed, a docile majority in the House of Commons was invoked, and the decisions of the Committee were reversed. If the Government would agree not to reverse any of the decisions of the Committee there might not be much to be said against the proposal, but they would not, and perhaps constitutionally could not, say anything of the kind. He submitted that the present occasion was one on which so great a responsibility should not be cast on the Grand Committee by withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the House so important and controversial a measure as the Aliens Bill.
*ME. STUART SAMUELsaid whatever the decision of the House might be on the general question, it could not be denied that the balance of argument had been in favour of the opponents of the proposal to send this Bill to a Grand Committee. He was not surprised that the Prime Minister had fled on being bombarded with shot taken from his own arsenal; but it was a remarkable case that, with
1108
the exception of the hon. Member for South-West Manchester, not a single Member on the other side had supported the Home Secretary on the present occasion.
MR. GALLOWAY: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me; I did not support the Home Secretary.
*MR. STUART SAMUELsaid that he would, of course, acquit the hon. Member of having done such a thing. The Home Secretary had argued that the Bill was non-contentious, but if so there was every chance of its passing in the House itself, while if it were contentious it had no business to be referred to the Grand Committee. But it was news to be told that the Bill was uncontroversial, as in previous discussions considerable difference of opinion had been evinced with regard to the revolutionary proposals contained in the Bill. If the measure were sent upstairs it would still farther curtail the opportunities afforded to Members of discussing measures affecting the interests of the people of the country, and he should vote against such a course being taken.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he felt somewhat bewildered by the course the debate had taken. Last session considerable discussion took place on the proposal to send the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill to a Grand Committee. On that occasion, in common with the Prime Minister and many other Members on the Government side of the House, he felt very strongly that the Bill should not be so dealt with, and the Leader of the House laid it down very clearly that controversial Bills ought not to be sent upstairs so long as the procedure of this House and of the Grand Committees remained as at present. He could not remember that that view was shared by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, but he was glad to discover that right hon. Gentlemen had now apparently changed their opinion as to the functions of the Grand Committees and the class of measure that should be referred to them, and to recognise that the differences between the Opposition and himself were not so great as he had

1109
supposed. The Home Secretary was the only person he had heard, describe this Bill as non-contentious. What was meant by a non-contentious measure? Was it a Bill which could not be contended against, or to which no objection could lie taken? If so, surely it could not be said this Bill came within that category. It raised all kids of bitter and angry feelings in various arts of the country; it brought up questions of prejudice and passion. Many Royal supporters of the Government objected to the Bill, and Lord Rothschild himself had introduced to the right hon. Gentleman a deputation which complained of the Bill in moderate but powerful terms. It was an abuse of language to describe the Bill as non-contentious, and nobody, except for Party purposes, would have made such a statement. He would not argue the principle of sending the Bill upstairs, as it seemed to be admitted that those who desired the Bill to pass would favour its reference to a Grand Committee, while those who objected to the Bill would oppose such a reference. He should like to ask one question or the matter, not of principle, but of practice. Did the Home Secretary really imagine he was facilitating the passage of this Bill by sending it to a Grand Committee, the machinery of which was unfitted to the conduct of controversial subjects? The right hon. Member for Wiltshire had said the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill was frequently closured in Grand Committee, but that was done only on one occasion. He understood that it had been ruled that the power of closure did not properly reside in the Chairman of such a Committee.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid it had been distinctly laid down that ii did; the Standing Order stated that the procedure of these Committees was to be the same as that of Select Committees.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he understood, at any rate, that the practice had been much discouraged by the Chair men of Committees. They had objected last year to sending the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill to a Grand Committee, and had urged that it was not practical politics to do so; and the event showed that they were right. The present Bill
1110
bristled with questions of police, The liberty of the subject, race, and religion, and a multiplicity of detail, and, after all, detail was a matter of principle when a measure was wholly objected to. This Bill appeared to contain a sufficient number of clauses to make it an unpleasant, disagreeable, and ill-tempered operation in Grand. Committee, and moreover, if it passed the Grand Committee the whole business might be gone over again on Report. The thought the proposal showed that the Government were not in earnest. He had long suspected it because there were forces at work in the Government Party against the measure. If the Government intended to carry it they need not propose to send it to a Committee where the ordinary machinery for closure by compartments was not at their disposal. He thought this Bill was intended to deal with certain constituencies in the East End of London, at the next election. He did not believe the Government expected to carry the Bill or even desired that it should eventually take its place on the Statute-book.
*MR. MOULTONsaid his view was not only that the Bill should not be sent to a Grand Committee, but further that the House had a right to call on the Home Secretary not to press the Motion. There was a vast difference between legislation and procedure. The minority had no right to complain of the legislation that the Government tried to pass; they were entitled to oppose it, but they could not complain of a Government using its majority for the purposes of supporting its legislative proposals. But the ease of procedure was wholly different. The Rules of Procedure existed mainly for the defence of the minority. They were settled in the interests of the House as a Legislative Body, so that whatever Party might be in power, the privileges of the House and all its Members in respect of debate and the examination and discussion of proposed legislation might be secure. If it was to be held that a vote of the House was sufficient to justify an abuse of procedure, then the Rules of Procedure were absolutely as though they were revoked, because a powerful Government could then just as much

1111
trample on the Rules of Procedure meant to protect the rights of the minority as they could pass a Bill to which their opponents; objected. The Rules of Procedure were agreed to by the House generally in view of the possibility that in future years the Party then in power might be the Party in Opposition There fore they were framed to secure rights and liberties to those who would not be strong enough at the moment to insist upon their views. He did not hesitate to say, therefore, that it should be a point of personal honour with the members of the Government never to abuse the Rules of Procedure. It was not a question of whether a docile majority would support them, it was a much higher issue. The Government could always get a docile majority to cover everything, but they should never call upon that majority to enable them to abuse the rights of those who were not strong enough to protect them. The present case was clearly one in which these principles should be applied. It was admitted by all that it was not the intention of the Rules that every Bill should be capable of being sent to a Grand Committee, but only a particular class of Bills. What, then, was the class of Bills which the Rules proposed to allow to go to Grand Committees? The Home Secretary himself acknowledged that such Bills must be substantially non-contentious. Supposing the Home Secretary when this debate began firmly believed in his view that this was a non-contentious Bill, could he say that it was a non-contentious Bill at this moment? The right hon. Gentleman had heard arguments which showed that the questions which would arise were questions of deep principle and not merely of detail. It was impossible for the Home Secretary now to believe that this Bill was non-contentious; this debate had proved the contrary, and the Home Secretary, therefore, ought not, as a matter of personal honour, to proceed with the Motion.
*MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS*MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS moved that the Question be now put.
The Motion was not accepted.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The question, of course, is whether
1112
a particular Bill ought to be submitted to a Grand Committee or discussed in. Committee of the Whole House. The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down edeavoured to make that question a matter of personal honour to the Ministers concerned. That, however, is quite imposible and unnecessary; we are really discussing a question of the convenience of the House and the progress of public business rather than a mater of personal honour of Ministers. If he hon. and learned Gentleman contends that for the present Government to send a Bill, which is clearly a contentious Bill, to a Grand Committee is a derogation of their evident duty, what has he to say of that Government, which a short time ago he supported, which sent to a Grand Committee the Employers. Liability Bill?
MR. JOHN ELLIS: That was read a second and a third time without a division.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That has nothing to do with it.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: And the Motion to send it to a Grand Committee was passed without a division.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I will put my view before the House, and I think I have some grounds for it. The hon. and learned Gentleman, as I say, supported a Government which sent the Employers Liability Bill to a Grand Committee. That Bill was one of the most contentious Bills which, has ever been in this House during the time I have been here. We I differed in regard to the whole principle of that measure. The views which we held in opposition to that measure were afterwards carried into effect in the Compensation for Workmen Bill. I am not entering into the merits, but to pretend that a Bill of that character was not contentious is perfectly absurd, and to state that such a Bill was allowed to pass the Second Reading has really nothing to do with the contention I am laying before the House. The question is whether the Opposition of that day was opposed to the Bill or not. The hon. Member for Oldham said that

1113
really this was a question of opinion founded on the merits of the Bill. If you approve of the Bill you vote for sending it to a Grand Committee; if you do not approve of the Bill you endeavour to keep it in the House, where you resort to the process of obstruction in the hope of destroying it. Of course the hon. Member for Oldham is a little inconsistent, for while he made that statement, in which I entirely concur, at the same time he declared that the sending of a Bill to the Grand Committee was the act of a Government which did not desire to see it passed. That is all very well as a piece of debating-society oratory, but there is absolutely no Member of the House who has had any acquaintance with its practical procedure who does not know perfectly well that the object of sending any Bill to a Grand Committee is to promote its progress, and see it passed. That is why the Government are sending this Bill to the Grand Committee, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are, in the existing state of things, perfectly justified in opposing it, just as we in turn would do when hon. Gentlemen opposite proposed legislation to which we object. I approve of this Bill, and therefore shall vote for it going to a Grand Committee. [OPPOSITION ironical laughter.] I would hope that everybody on both sides of the House were equally frank. Every Bill, almost without exception, proposed by a Government is a contentious Bill.
It so happens that I have had a good deal of experience of Grand Committees in the early stages. I was in the Cabinet which proposed them, and to me was given the charge of the first great Bill that was brought before such a Committee, viz., the Bankruptcy Bill. Mr. Gladstone never contended that his proposal for delegation was to be confined to non-contentious Bills, for if he had he would have been unable to send the Bankruptcy Bill to a Grand Committee. But undoubtedly what Mr. Gladstone did say was that, in the first instance, in carrying out his great experiment, he proposed to send only those Bills which were not contentious in the most distinctly partisan sense, where the whole of the Government supporters were on one side and the whole of the Opposition Party was on the other. The Bankruptcy Bill was a contentious measure. Some hon. Members
1114
approved of it and some did not, and the; same thing might apply to this Bill. I think if this Bill goes to the Grand Committee it will be found that there are divisions of opinion on both sides of the House. But I wish to go back to those early days when Mr. Gladstone proposed his great scheme of Grand Committees. I assert, having been very intimately connected with the proposal, that Mr. Gladstone's object was to limit the operation of obstruction in regard to public measures, to quicken the progress of legislation, and that was to the advantage of every Party which was a progressive Party. I thought so then and I think so still. [Ironical OPPOSITION cheers.] We may dispute as to which side that title can now best be applied, but it appears to me that progress cannot be satisfactorily attained in legislation, in social reform, in all the work with which the House has to deal, unless we secure some measure of delegation. I am in favour, therefore, putting aside for a moment the question of the merits of this particular Bill, of a more general delegation to Committees of the House. We have worked the system experimentally, and as I think, successfully, and I would be glad to see more contentious Bills referred to Grand Committees. If Grand Committees are properly chosen they are, in fact, microcosms of the House. We can have two or three, or even more, sitting at the same time, and we can therefore double or treble the work which the House may perform, and that, as I have said, is to the advantage of the most progressive Party in the House. I invite my hon. friends around me to accept that position, and, though hon. Members opposite are now contesting with us, I invite them to accept the same conclusion. Whatever is done in this respect is for the benefit, not of one Party alone, but of both Parties of the House. More and more the House is taking upon itself detailed work, more and more is expected of legislation, and it cannot perform its duties unless it carries this principle of delegation further than it has hitherto done. If it is alleged, as it has been alleged, that in these Committees there is not sufficient arrangement for dealing with obstruction, then I, for one, will be perfectly prepared to vote for such an alteration of the Rules as will give the

1115
Chairmen of these Committees greater powers.
*SIR HENRY FOWLER: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman speaks with authority as to what was in Mr. Gladstone's mind when the appointment of Grand Committees was first proposed. I was in the House at that time and familiar with all the debates, but Mr. Gladstone never revealed to the House any ulterior intention similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. I regret not only that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was not present during the earlier portion of the debate when Mr. Gladstone's own words in connection with this matter of Grand Committees were read to the House, and also Mr. Gladstone's later utterances in the controversy which arose between him and the then Leader of the Opposition, the late Sir Stafford Northcote. I still more regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not have the opportunity of hearing quoted the views of the Prime Minister on the same subject. These quotations showed that the Prime Minister had exhibited determined opposition session after session, both before and since he became Prime Minister, to sending such Bills to a Grand Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that he viewed this practice with growing alarm, and that the House was being placed in a false position by sending Bills upstairs which ought to be considered in Committee of the Whole House. In fact, the Prime Minister has committed himself to every argument which has been used in this debate against sending this particular Bill to a Grand Committee. But having heard these quotations from his own statements the Prime Minister left the House and has not taken any further notice of the debate. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that if this House is to go on attempting to perform the enormous mass of work now thrown on its shoulders without any delegation or devolution it cannot carry the legislation of the country into effect. But I do not think the Grand Committee, as at present constituted, would prove the most suitable instrument for that purpose. I remember I had the honour of sitting on
1116
the Grand Committee on the Bankruptcy; Bill, about which there was no controversy as to principle—none whatever. The controversy was as to details. Every man in the House of Commons wanted an effective Bill passed. The right hon. Gentleman introduced a very good Bill into the House and carried it through: Grand Committee with consummate ability, and with his great persuasive power he got through all the difficulties of the Report stage. We have heard about Bills which were sent to the Grand Committee which were not suitable for that tribunal. The hon. Member for Oldham alluded to one very well-known. Bill in which he took a distinguished part, along with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University. They formed a trio and brought the Committee to a complete standstill. I do not think that in any division they mustered more than seven supporters, but the Committee gave the Bill up in despair and the Bill was wrecked in the Grand Committee by the obstruction pure and simple of a very small minority. That is why the noble Lord and the hon. Member who have occupied the position of Chairmen of Grand Committees have told the House that this is not an efficient, workable instrument. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary expects when he has carried his Motion to take this Bill upstairs. How long does he expect that this Committee will last, and when will all controversy disappear? And then the whole debates will have to be gone over again on the Report stage. The Grand Committee is not an instrument for legislation which the Government desires to see pass. It is only an instrument for legislation which the House desires to see passed, and regarding; which the House says that the details can be much better thrashed out upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham says that there ought to be delegation and devolution, and I agree that if the House intelligently considered the whole of this question they would be able to contrive some scheme for dealing with it, but it will not be the present scheme. My noble friend behind me quoted a precedent in which the closure was put in force on an important Bill.

1117
But that was put in force on the theory that the proceedings in a Standing Committee were conducted in the same way as the proceedings in a Select Committee, and that a Select Committee had power to regulate its own procedure. How that would work in a protracted series of debates I have my doubts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham admits that this is a Bill the principle of which is contested. That principle involves most serious questions of an international character and of an administrative character, questions as to the powers of the Executive and the power of dealing with foreign countries, and questions concerning conflicting trades and varying interests, and, therefore, I think that the House is the only tribunal to settle the details of such a measure. I am quite sure it will be impossible to avoid full discussion in the House. If I desired to see this Bill passed, which I do not, I should certainly not support the Motion to refer it to a Standing Committee, because I believe that the whole of the time and labour will be thrown away.
MR. DALZIELsaid that the House had great reason to complain of the attitude of the Government with regard to this debate. In a debate of this character, the presence and leadership of the Prime Minister should be given to it. What was the position in which the House found itself? The Home Secretary proposed to refer this Bill to a Grand Committee, and all the debate which followed was treated with the most absolute contempt. That was not the way in which the Government ought to treat the House of Commons in a matter of this kind. For good or evil, he contended that they were to-day sanctioning a proposal which went to the very root of procedure in this House. It would create a revolution in the practice of the House if this Bill were sent to a Grand Committee. The Government having made up their minds, it mattered not whether they, on that side, were unanimous; not the slightest heed was paid to what they said. If the House passed the Motion, what was to prevent the Government coming to the House with the most contentious Bill they could possibly bring forward; and with their solid majority
1118
referring it to a Grand Committee? There might be a good deal to be said for the proposal if this House was expected to pass all the legislation which Governments expected it to pass; but it was a departure which ought not to be treated as it was treated by the Government, and ought not to be settled without full and careful inquiry. It was not a matter to be decided on the Aliens Bill. It went far beyond that to a matter of principle, and might be used for any Bill that could possibly be introduced. They were now about to establish a precedent which would give future Governments the right to send the most contentious Bills upstairs. Nay, more, it would give them the right to take away control from this House, because there would be nothing to prevent a Government, having sent a Bill upstairs, from refusing to accept a single Amendment, leaving the House only the Third Beading stage on which to protest. Such a departure ought not to be carried out without the most complete consideration, and after its almost unanimous acceptance by the House.
This was to his mind a new and a most dangerous proposal. During the afternoon three Bills had been mentioned as instances. The first was the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill; but that had no analogy to the question under discussion. It was a private Member's Bill; and there was the greatest difference in this matter between a private Member's Bill and a Government Bill, because, rightly or wrongly, it was the accepted custom of the House to recognise that if a private Member got a Second Reading for his Bill he ought to have all the advantages which the House, as it affected private Members, could give him. He maintained that the only possibility of passing a private Member's Bill was to send it upstairs. With Government Bills the conditions were altogether different. They were masters of the time of the House; they had the remainder of the session in front of them; and the arguments which would weigh as regarded private Members' Bills did not weigh as regarded Government Bills. Then the Employers Liability Bill was mentioned. It was admitted by every test that could be brought to bear on it that it was not a contentions Bill. If it has been, the House would not have

1119
passed its Second Reading without a division. That Bill, therefore, could not be quoted as a precedent. Then there was the most curious suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that the Bankruptcy Bill was a contentious Bill. It was very: hard to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. What did he say about the Bankruptcy Bill a few years ago. He said—
"It raised absolutely no Party or controversial question, no contentious question: whatever, in the ordinary sense of the word."
He would put the right hon. Gentleman of a few years ago against the right hon. Gentleman of to-day, and leave them to; settle it between them. He maintained; that the Bankruptcy Bill, according to its author, was not a contentious Bill. If the Motion were passed they would be making it possible for any future Government to send any Bill they pleased to a Grand Committee. Here was a most extraordinary situation as far as the Government were concerned. The Home Secretary's case for sending the Bill to the Grand Committee was that it was not contentious; the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the only Member who supported the Motion, was that it was contentious. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham ought to be more fully consulted beforehand in reference to those matters. Then the time of the House would not be wasted. He thought the silence of the Government during the debate had been brazen. He should like to know what the Under-Secretary for the Home Department had to say in that matter. With the courage which characterised him, he might throw over both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the chief of his Department and give new reasons why this departure should be made.
There were other reasons which had a very important bearing on this matter. The hours of the House had been changed, and Grand Committees now sat simultaneously with this House. There might be ten or eighty Members engaged upstairs in a very important debate; and the House might at the same time be engaged in a discussion also. In that way the influ-
1120
ence of the House would be divided; and that was a very important point indeed. He thought the House ought to take into consideration the question whether the Grand Committees should not rise when the Speaker took the Chair. It was obviously impossible that the House should have full authority so long as a great proportion of its Members were engaged upstairs discussing important measures. The proposal of the Government was an all-advised and bad proposal. It was not supported by any one practically, except by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who supported it for the very reason that the Home Secretary opposed it. No Member of the rank and file of the Party opposite supported it. They saw further than the Home Secretary; and they saw the danger of a Liberal Government sending any measure they liked upstairs. It was a mistaken and a dangerous proposal; there was no precedent to justify it, and he ventured very humbly to protest against it.
MR. WHITLEYsaid the most astonishing fact in the debate was the extraordinary absence of the Prime Minister. At the very moment the House expected him to give guidance in the matter, and after his own utterances had been quoted from the Front Opposition Bench, the right hon. Gentleman left the House. Surely they had a right to claim that the Prime Minister should not treat the House in such a manner as that. That was not the way to get business through. He had read the speeches on the subject on a previous occasion of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Department. It was an insult to the House when he heard his own words being read across the Table that the right hon. Gentleman should have immediately left the House and should not come back to tell the House how he proposed to reconcile those words with the action he proposed to take. It would be a proper thing for the House to decline to allow this matter to go forward until the right hon. Gentleman had given some explanation.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I shall only detain the House a few moments. I have listened to this debate, and in my opinion there is nothing more important for this House than that it should be governed by the highest authority and settled principles. This is a question upon which the House has a right to expect the guidance and opinion of its Leader. The whole character of the House of Commons in its conduct of this Bill—I will go further and say the character of the House of Commons in the opinion of the country—and I deeply regret to be obliged to say it—is not what it has been in former times. That ought to make us the more careful in matters of this kind to act with the greatest deliberation and under proper authority. I do not want to place my opinion of the merits of this Bill before the House on this occasion, but I confess, so far as I can judge, this is a most controversial Bill, involving great constitutional principles. It is a Bill stated by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to be contentious, and the right hon. Gentleman failed to prove that any Bills of this kind had been sent to a Committee upstairs. Therefore if this Bill is to be sent to a Grand Committee it is in violation, as I understand it, of all the precedents that have governed the action of this House in cases of this kind. [At this point Mr. A. J. BALFOUR entered the House.] I am exceedingly glad the right hon. Gentleman has come into the House, because I am sure we shall now hear from him how he reconciles his proposal to send this Bill, which is a highly contentious Bill—contentious in a marked degree—involving constitutional principles which hitherto have been rigidly observed, with the language he used in 1895. The right hon. Gentleman will tell the House how his intention is consistent with the principles, quoted several times in the House, which he laid down to govern this subject.
*MR. J. A. PEASEsaid the Home Secretary had justified sending this Bill to a Grand Committee on the ground that this Bill was a non-contentious measure, and in proof of his statement had called attention to the fact that it had passed its Second Reading by a majority of
1122
124. Nearly all the Opposition went into the Lobby against the Government, and considering the fact that in the absence of over thirty Irish National representatives, always away unpaired, the Party majority in favour of the Government was 140, it was absurd for the Home Secretary to claim that this Bill was non-contentious. But the right hon. Gentleman's statement had been refuted by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who came down and said that this was a contentious Bill. He instanced as a precedent for its being sent to a Grand Committee the Employers Liability Bill, which he said was also a contentious measure. The Employers Liability Bill was not contentious in the least degree. If the ex-Colonial Secretary had only listened to the debate, he would have heard the right hon. Member for Fife's statement. He had pointed out the fact that the Employers Liability Bill was not even opposed on its Second Reading, and that the only contentious portion was the one clause which dealt with the power to contract out. This was the most contentious Bill which it ever had been proposed to send to a Grand Committee. One reason why a contentious Bill should not go before a Grand Committee was that the House might lose the power of making any amendment to it, for if it was not amended in its passage through the Committee it could not be amended on Report.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid under the new Rules that was not so. Such a Bill could now be amended on Report.
*MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he was glad that that change had been made. As an illustration of the necessity of this Bill going before a Committee of the Whole House, he mentioned that at two general elections a person had opposed him wholly and solely on the ground that he might oppose the admission of aliens to this country. During those elections, an enormous number of points were raised, affecting race, religion, and trade; there was aroused strong passion as well as the sentiment connected with the liberty afforded to political refugees, and from his experience he could assert, the

1123
questions raised by the Bill were of far-reaching importance such as the whole electorate were entitled to have a voice in through their representatives sitting in Committee of the Whole House. It was a matter of very great interest to the community at large and was of a most contentious character, and the use of the Grand Committee ought not to be abused by having a Bill of this kind sent before it.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had no prejudice against this Bill, and that was shown by his voting for its Second Reading. He had voted for it because he thought there should be some general regulations laid down with regard to the admission of aliens into this country, but he did not agree with the whole of the provisions of the Bill, and had voted for the Second Reading because he thought a Bill of this importance would come before a Committee of the Whole House and that he and those who were of his opinion would have many opportunities during the Committee stage to approve or reject those parts of the Bill with which they did or did not agree. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had characterised the Bill as a contentious measure, in proof of which he had said there was considerable cross-voting upon the Second Reading. His recollection was that there was not very much cross-voting, and, unless he was greatly mistaken, there were not more than four on the Opposition side who voted for it, and half-a-dozen on the Unionist side who voted against it; and the six who voted against it on the Government side of the House had special reasons for so doing. Never hid there been a more fair Party division upon any subject. Hon. Gentlemen on the Unionist side of the House were in favour of very strict regulations with regard to aliens, and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side were opposed to any legislation on the subject, and in particular they referred to political crime. The Bill was essentially a controversial one, and he certainly did think, when he supported the Government on the Second Reading under those circumstances, that he was being unfairly treated when he was told, having voted for the
1124
Bill, that a particular action should be taken in regard to it, and that it should be taken before a Grand Committee upstairs. The Bill would take sometime in Committee upstairs, because obstruction was much easier in Committee, and if he had one stalwart with him he would undertake to say that the Home Secretary would have to give up all other occupations to pass this Bill through the Committee. The Bill was essentially controversial, and the only reason it was being sent upstairs was that the Government had made such a mess of things that their business was in arrears, and there was not time to get through the House the measures they desired to pass. Personally he would prefer the Aliens Bill to be pushed through than the measure intended to bribe the brewers to vote for the Party opposite at the next election. Had it not been for the miserable Licensing Bill, there would have been plenty of time to deal with the Aliens Bill without sending it upstairs. He was glad to see the Prime Minister back in his place, though, he did not expect much light and leading from him when he spoke. The Prime Minister's mind was so much greater than his own that he could not follow the right hon. Gentleman into the metaphysical clouds which he so much frequented. But he did admire the Prime Minister's skill of fence in debate. The right hon. Gentleman was now in a very tight place, and it would be interesting to see how he would get out of it. In 1895 the right hon. Gentleman said—
"I have watched with growing alarm and disquietude the way in which the Government, session after session, have shown an inclination to refer to Grand Committees Bills of a more and more controversial character."
He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to reconcile that statement with the Motion now before the House.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that hon. Gentlemen have been largely occupied in what is, at the worst, the innocent, and, at the best, I hope the profitable occupation of reading up my old speeches upon the subject of references to Grand Committees, and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has

1125
challenged me in regard to a statement that I made in 1895. I have not the same eagerness to read my speeches which seems to possess hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I do not recollect the occasions on which these various statements were delivered, but I can easily tell the House my views upon this matter. When Grand Committees were first started by Mr. Gladstone, in 1882, I regarded them with extreme suspicion. I did not like many changes that Mr. Gladstone then proposed. The closure was one of them, and the establishment of Grand Committees was another. The particular shape which those changes have since taken has been an alteration in form and not in substance, and, as the House knows, I have long come to the conclusion that it was absolutely impossible to get through our legislative business without the closure. I do not believe that any Government could do it, and certainly the last specimen of a Radical Government we had used the closure in a manner to which I objected, and to which, were I in opposition, I should doubtless object again. We have had power to apply the closure to particular debates, to clauses of Bills, and to Bills as a whole. It is extremely regrettable, but it is, I think, absolutely inevitable. With regard to my conversion to the system of Grand Committees, I admit that there are many classes of Bills which I should prefer to see discussed in this House, but I also feel that Mr. Gladstone was probably more far-seeing than I was when he said that if we were to go on at all there must be a large measure of devolution of the Committee business of this House to Committees upstairs. It is quite true that I have expressed the view that there are Bills which are so important and so controversial that they ought not to be sent upstairs, and I still hold that opinion. The Leader of the Opposition has admitted what is indeed obvious, that whether or not a Bill is controversial is, and must be, a matter of opinion. There will always be Bills on, or near, the border line of what ought, or ought not, to be sent upstairs, and I candidly admit that this Bill is near that border line. I do not deny that this is a Bill which, if circumstances were favourable, might reasonably be discussed in this House. There are Bills the details of which it would be obviously
1126
absurd to waste the time of the House in discussing, and which nobody would object to sending upstairs. I do not say that of this Bill. It might reasonably be said that this Bill might, with advantage, be discussed in this House, and it might also reasonably be said that it might be better discussed upstairs. But when a Bill is near the border line we shall, I think, find that those who want to advance Government business are those who think the Bill might, with some advantage, be sent upstairs, and those who want to obstruct Government business—if there are any—are those who take the opposite view. That division of opinion is, I think, precisely the division of opinion that now prevails in the House.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he had objected to the Bill being sent upstairs.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware that my hon. friend had objected, but, broadly speaking, I think that is the division of opinion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he also objected.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That rather confirms the statement that I made before. Let us be candid in the matter. Will anybody deny that that solid phalanx of hon. Members opposite have been moved by something more than the abstract desire that the principle of Grand Committees should not be forced a hair's-breadth beyond the point—I do not think they practised it—which, by a process of exegesis of their own, they extract from my previous utterances on the subject? The motive of hon. Gentlemen may be honourable and legitimate, but at all events it is plain. If this had been a Bill which clearly belonged to the category of controversial measures, of course it would be straining the Rules of the House to send it upstairs, but I do not think we are straining the Rules. If hon. Gentlemen opposite took a view that would make it possible to carry a reasonable modicum of legislation in the course of the session without sending the Bill upstairs, I should not greatly quarrel with hon. Gentlemen who object to its being so dealt with. But that is not the situation. The Opposition, who have the power in their hands, are determined that that modicum

1127
of legislation shall not be carried so far as they can prevent it. They do not deny it. They oppose this Motion because they do not want progress, and I support it because I do want progress. I have been accused of indulging in metaphysical oratory which nobody could understand—
MR. LABOUCHERE: I said which I could not understand.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite willing to accept the hon. Gentleman as the high water-mark of intelligence. At all events, I hope I have now reduced the matter to what everybody will deem to be a perfectly honest and fair statement of the case. Everybody may not agree with my conclusions, but they are simply these: that the Bill is one near the border line of Bills which ought not to go to Grand Committee; that those who wish to obstruct Government business in any way they can naturally wish to discuss the Bill in the House; and that those who want to promote Government business on the whole desire to send it upstairs. While I never would attempt to force what I regard as the constitutional
privileges of this House, I do not think the Government are unduly forcing them when they deal in this manner with a Bill which, although it has excited some opposition, has been carried by a majority greater than the ordinary majorities the Government command in this House, and in which the only really difficult question is the question of political refugees, with which we have promised to deal in Committee. If the Committee upstairs will consent to deal with that question in a business-like spirit, I believe it will be better dealt with by them than it would be down here. I hope that the House, having debated this question at a length which somewhat astonishes me, will now consent to come to a decision on a question which I do not think involves the profound principle which hon. Members have read into it, but is really a question between those who wish to promote, and those who do not wish to promote, the progress of Government business.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 277; Noes, 187. (Division List No. 138.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dickson, Charles Scott

Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Doughty, George

Arrol, Sir William

Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J.A (Worc.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir H.

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Duke, Henry Edward

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chapman, Edward

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Balcarres, Lord

Charrington, Spencer

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

Coddington, Sir William

Finch, Rt. Hon. George N.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bartley Sir George C. T.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fisher, William Hayes

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Beckett, Ernest William

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bignold, Arthur

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Forster, Henry William

Bigwood, James

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Bill, Charles

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Gardner, Ernest

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Garfit, William

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Boulnois, Edmund

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn)

Bousfield, William Robert

Cust, Henry John C.

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

Brassey, Albert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Davenport, William Bromley

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Brymer, William Ernest

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Butcher John George

Denny, Colonel

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

Graham, Henry Robert

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Robinson, Brooke

Greene, Sir E.W (B'rySEdm'nds

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Grenfell, William Henry

Macdona, John Gumming

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Gretton, John

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Maconochie, A. W.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Groves, James Grimble

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Gunter, Sir Robert

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Hain, Edward

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Malcolm, Ian

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Milner Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Milvain, Thomas

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Heath, James (Stafrords., N.W.

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Spear, John Ward

Heaton, John Henniker

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Henderson, Sir A. (Staffords, W.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Moore, William

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Stock, James Henry

Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H (Somers't, E

Morpeth, Viscount

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Morrell, George Herbert

Stroyan, John

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Morrison, James Archibald

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'dUniv.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Mount, William Arthur

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Thornton, Percy M.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Tollemache, Henry James

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hunt, Rowland

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Tuff, Charles

Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Valentia, Viscount

Jobb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheffield

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pemberton, John S. G.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Percy, Earl

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Pierpoint, Robert

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Webb, Colonel William George

Kerr, John

Plummer, Walter R.

Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton

Keswick, William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

Kimber, Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Knowles, Sir Lees

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Pym, C. Guy

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Randles, John S.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

Rankin, Sir James

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R. (Bath

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Remnant, James Farquharson

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Renwick, George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Richards, Henry Charles

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Lowe, Francis William

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bell, Richard

Burke, E. Haviland

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Blake, Edward

Burns, John

Allen, Charles P.

Boland, John

Burt, Thomas

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Asquith Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Brigg, John

Caldwell, James

Atherley-Jones, L.

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Cameron, Robert

Austin, Sir John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Barlow, John Emmott

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

1130

1131

Cawley, Frederick

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Rea, Russell

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jordan, Jeremiah

Reddy, M.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Cremer, William Randal

Kilbride, Denis

Rickett, J. Compton

Crooks, William

Kitson, Sir James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cullman, J.

Labouchere, Henry

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Dalziel, James Henry

Lambert, George

Robson, William Snowdon

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Langley, Batty

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Runciman, Walter

Delany, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Russell, T. W.

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Leng, Sir John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Levy, Maurice

Schwann, Charles L.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

Dillon, John

Lough, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Dobbie, Joseph

Lundon, W.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sheehy, David

Duncan, J. Hastings

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dunn, Sir William

M'Crae, George

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Elibank, Master of

K'Kenna, Reginald

Slack, John Bamford

Ellice, Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Soares, Ernest J.

Emmott, Alfred

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Strachey, Sir Edward

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sullivan, Donal

Fenwick, Charles

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Ffrench, Peter

Mooney, John J.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Field, William

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moulton, John Fletcher

Tomkinson, James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Murnaghan, George

Toulmin, George

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Murphy, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wallace, Robert

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Warner Thomas Courtenay T.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Norman, Henry

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Hammond, John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Weir, James Galloway

Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monm'th

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

White, George (Norfolk)

Harwood, George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Doherty, William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

O'Malley, William

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Parrott, William

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Partington, Oswald

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Paulton, James Mellor

Yoxall, James Henry

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Philipps, John Wynford

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pirie, Duncan V.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Joicey, Sir James

Price, Robert John

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)

Priestley, Arthur

ALIENS (EXPENSES).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the salaries and remuneration of any persons employed, and of any Expenses incurred under any Act
1132
of the present session, to make provision with respect to the Immigration of Aliens, and other matters incidental thereto."—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
MR. LOUGHsaid he thought it would be reasonable to ask that a Resolution of this kind should appear on the Paper so that they would know its precise provisions before they were asked to debate it. He supposed the object was to provide the expenses that might arise under the Aliens Bill.

1133
It appealed to him that these might be very considerable, and if the Home Secretary would now give an indication of the amount and allow the Resolution to stand over it might be dealt with more quickly later on after hon. Members had had time to consider the objects for which the expenses were to be incurred. There was no hurry about this matter, because it would be some time before the expenses could be incurred. He understood that the expenses would include the payment, or the possible payment, of passages for aliens who were sent back, and also the expenses of the department which would be set up to carry out the provisions of the Bill. It was impossible that a Resolution of this kind could be submitted to the House without an estimate having been prepared. Probably at this moment the whole department existed in skeleton. The Committee ought to know the number to be engaged. They knew that in the case of some new Acts the expenses at the various ports were very considerable. The expenses in connection with the sugar tax would be trifling as compared with the machinery necessary to carry out the provisions of this Bill. The measure would involve the examination of every ship on which passengers were carried. There would be an examination of first-class as well as third-class passengers, and a very elaborate staff would be necessary. He noticed that in the Bill itself there was the safeguard that the expenses were to be such as were approved by the Treasury. But the House of Commons was interested in this matter as well as the Treasury, and he thought they ought to hear as much as the Home Secretary could tell them now in regard to the expenses under the Bill.
MR. WHITLEYobjected to the Resolution passing without some explanation. The Committee had a blank cheque presented to them which they were asked to sign without the least indication of the expense that would attend the working of the Aliens Bill. A good deal depended upon the cost of working the measure. There ought to be an estimate of the number of officials to be appointed. After what had happened in recent years the Committee could put no faith in Treasury supervision.
1134
Treasury control had become quite a myth in latter days. He objected to the Resolution being brought on without any notice whatever. He was sure the Committee would be glad to hear anything the Home Secretary could tell them on the subject. The Resolution had been kept back until the moment it was to be proposed. He could not see why it did not appear on the Agenda Paper. An Agenda Paper was no value unless it contained the business to be done. Unless they got an accurate estimate they ought to move an Amendment and not give the Government a blank cheque.
MR. MCKENNAsaid that this was in some respects the most important Vote to be carried in regard to the Bill. However bad the Bill might be in principle it did not matter whether it was carried in that House provided it was not carried out in the country. The Committee ought to know how many officials the Home Secretary was going to appoint, and what sort of men they would be. Were they to be ordinary Custom House officers, to whom would be entrusted the duty of inquiring into the character of immigrants, male and female, into their antecedents, the conditions under which they proposed to live in this country, and their secret history in the past? Was all this to be done by one individual, or would the right hon. Gentleman appoint a competent staff of gentlemen with considerable salaries—a staff who would be as qualified as Foreign Office clerks to carry out this delicate work. Upon the answer to this question depended the whole value of the Bill. The Committee could not discuss the principle of the measure until they knew how it was to be carried out. The expenses might come to £1,000,000 or £1,000, but the Committee had not the slightest indication of what they would be. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he intended to create an establishment that would ensure that the Bill would be properly carried out, and that he would nave the means at his disposal to give effect to the will of Parliament. The staff must be adequate, otherwise it would be idle to carry the Bill. At the same time the staff should not be to

1135
expensive. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give a detailed statement to the Committee. Failing that, he hoped the Committee, in the interests of economy and good legislation, would not pass the Resolution.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the whole estimate of the value of this Bill was how it was going to work. He had voted for the Second Reading, but he was bound to say that if he had thought it would have been referred to a Grand Committee he would not have done so. If was quite obvious that if the Bill was to come into operation the Home Office must have thought out what the expense of the working would be. Unless the Home Secretary could show the Committee that he had some accurate notion of the expense of working the Bill they must come to the conclusion that the Bill had been thrown on the House in a crude state, not properly thought out. He ventured to say that the Bill would require a great deal of amendment. In the course of the debate the Prime Minister had dwelt on the question of the right of asylum. That was an important element of the Bill, but there were other equally important matters which required considerable attention and amendment. What they wanted to know was in what direction the expenditure would take place, what sort or class of officers were to be put on to inspect and receive aliens. He was one of those who thought that a large number of aliens should not be allowed to come into this country, but the case of each individual should be considered. Had the Home Secretary considered how many of the inspectors should be women, because a very large number of these immigrants were women and children. He endorsed what had been said as to the necessity of placing the terms of the Resolution on the Paper before the Vote was discussed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would be able to assure the Committee that estimates of expenditure under the Bill had been carefully considered and prepared, and that this Bill was to be a workable measure and not one intended merely for public consumption. He was certain
1136
that the Bill in its present shape would do a considerable amount of mischief.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that some exception had been taken to the form of the Motion and the manner in which it had been presented. The form had become almost ancient. He contended that the terms of the Resolution did not conform to the Standing Order. That was not the view now acted upon. The view now was that when a Minister gave notice that the House should resolve itself into Committee that that was what the Motion meant. If they were not to have the sum named on the first making of the Motion in the House, at any rate they ought to have it in their possession fully and in a written form when they came to consider the matter in Committee. He had again and again constantly pressed that without the slightest success. He could only act on what he understood the Motion to be as read from the Chair. This was not a Resolution for voting any sum of money. What it did was to authorise the Committee dealing with this Bill to deal with the clauses which involved the expenditure of money. That money would appear in the Votes and if considered excessive could be discussed. He was not contending that the system was satisfactory; but it was not a fact that this Motion was a Vote for a sum of money. It was only a Motion to authorise the Committee to deal with the clauses authorising the expenditure of money. Further, the clauses in the Bill would determine the amount of money to be spent. If the Committee chose to reject the money clauses then no money would be spent. He would strongly recommend to hon. Members opposite the study of Standing Order 71, and also the study of the construction to be placed upon it, so that they might know when a Minister made a Motion without notice that to-morrow or the day after, "The House do resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House," they should not be taken by surprise, but should debate the Motion and if necessary divide on it. He was ashamed to be teaching the Opposition their duty; but they did not seem to be aware of the opportunities they missed. It was when the Motion was orginally

1137
made that the Opposition should have discussed it. Of course, they knew nothing about it then; they did not appear to know much more about it now. The Home Secretary had, forsooth, been asked to give an exact estimate of the sum to be expended under the Bill. That was impossible, because the right hon. Gentleman did not know what clauses would be retained or rejected by that extraordinary and, as he thought, most unconstitutional body the Grand Committee. The charges might be enormous. The right hon. Gentleman could not tell within £500,000 what they might be. They might involve the charges of a war for all he could say; but those charges would have to be put on the Estimates, probably as a Vote of credit in the ordinary way. There was a very serious grievance connected with these money Estimates. They did not know beforehand the amount of the Vote; and when they came to the actual consideration of it, not as he was convinced was formerly the practice when the amount and conditions were known, they had to consider a Resolution which was merely read from the Chair, and the terms of which were not before the Committee in writing. That was an extreme abuse; and he hoped to live to see the day when a Government would be in office who would remedy it.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that the hon. Gentleman had instructed the Government as to the proper way of laying their financial proposals before the House. He had also instructed the Opposition as to the way in which to obstruct those proposals. All he would say was that he would welcome the aid of the hon. Gentleman in pointing out the mistakes of the Government. He thought, however, that there was a flaw in the argument of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman contended that if the Resolution were passed then the Committee upstairs would be forced to provide a sum for the working of the Act.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong. The passing of the Resolution would not in any way compel the Committee to pass any clause involving expenditure.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that there would be a moral obligation; and he assumed that a moral obligation had still some force even over hon. Gentlemen opposite. There was, however, a real difficulty in the matter. In America a large staff of inspectors were employed in carrying out the duties that would have to be carried out under this Bill; and it was a matter of notoriety that they had not been able to carry them out properly. Therefore, it seemed to him that with that experience before them it would be waste of money to make provision for a large staff of inspectors. It was notorious that alien immigration into the United States was on a scale which alien immigration into this country could not approach.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really getting far from this Resolution. The Resolution simply authorises the Committee upstairs to consider the question; and the argument of the hon. Gentleman would be more appropriately addressed to the Committee.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he accepted the ruling of the Chair. He did, however, wish to emphasise the point made by his hon. friend the Member for Poplar that the inspecting staff should include a number of women. They were often asked to put their finger on certain details of expenditure which they considered unnecessary, and which ought to be discontinued. There were now a large number of Customs officers who were recently engaged for the purposes of the corn duty. Why should they not be utilised as inspectors? He thought this was a matter of practical utility and, therefore, he recommended it to the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONexpressed a hope that the Home Secretary had prepared the statement referred to by his hon. friend. Without this Resolution the Committee could not consider Clause 7 of the Bill. It was in order to lay a foundation for Clause 7 of the Bill that this Resolution was necessary. That was the clause that gave power to appoint officers and so provide the remuneration and salaries of the persons employed. He did not know what estimate was possible but it was very desirable that

1139
the Committee should know generally what the expenditure was likely to be. They were taking the first steps now towards the creation of a new Department of State, and they ought to know in general terms the number of officers to be appointed and the cost which these matters would entail.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said he might point out that there had been no change of procedure in this matter, the terms of the notice of Motion of these Resolutions had always been vague, as the hon. Member for King's Lynn had pointed out. It had never been the practice to put the specific terms upon the Paper; he had not been discourteous to the House in any way in adopting that form because it was the form of procedure which had marked debates of this character for many years. The hon. Member for Dundee had pressed him for an estimate of what the expenditure would amount to but it was quite impossible to give any detailed expenditure, at all events until the Bill had passed through the Committee and assumed its final form and until they knew what they would have to provide for when the Bill became law. The hon. Member opposite had asked whether it was intended to create a large department to carry out the proposals of this Bill. The proposal was that the central duties proposed by this Bill should be carried out by the experienced staff of the Home Office. There would be no fresh department to deal with the matter, and though some additional staff, e.g., of inspectors, might be necessary a very large number of the duties would be performed by the officers of the Customs and the police. He could not make any statement to the House as to the figures nor as to the extra staff that would be required. It had not escaped his attention that it might be desirable, if not absolutely necessary to have an increase of staff. It was quite impossible at this stage to say what the exact staff would be, but it was not the intention of the Government to have an expensive establishment, at all events at first, to carry out the provisions of the Bill. If he had the figures he would give them
1140
with pleasure, but it was impossible to say what the expenses would be.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that the Committee had been gratified by the unexpected spectacle of the Secretary of State sheltering under the ample wing of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Parliamentary necessities sometimes made strange bedfellows. The right hon. Gentleman was in this dilemna. Either the minimising estimate just given to the House as to the size of the staff to be employed was untrustworthy, or—and he was disposed to think this was the truth of the matter—the Bill would be a, dead letter. Let the Committtee remember for what the right hon. Gentleman had to provide. Under the Bill every passenger arriving at any port of the United Kingdom was to be examined to discover whether he was an alien, whether he was likely to become a public charge, and whether he had any visible or probable means of support. That work could not be performed by a mere policeman or Customs officer in his leisure hours, or by a few gentlemen at the Home Office. To suppose it was a manifest absurdity. Either this Bill was intended for gallery-purposes and was not intended to be put into practical operation, or it was a serious measure which the Government honestly desired to work effectively. In the latter event the provisions of the Bill could not be carried out without a large army of expensive officials. This was probably one of the most important aspects of the question and for himself, apart from the question of expense, he would vote against the Resolution on the ground that it was one and a necessary-step in the course of legislation which he considered to be absolutely detrimental to the best interests of the country, as well as being against our constitutional practice.
MR. PERKSsaid that all the Estimates of the Government were so wide of the mark that anything in the nature of exactness could hardly be expected from them. One reason why he hoped the Committee would reject this Motion was that the bottom would then be knocked out of this most offensive and unnecessary Bill.

1141
In all the ports of the country at which large numbers of passengers were constantly arriving the Bill was viewed with considerable anxiety.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was approaching a discussion of the Bill itself; he must confine his remarks strictly to the authorisation to the Committee as set forth in the Resolution.
MR. PERKSsubmitted that the Resolution was more than an authorisation to the Committee. It was an authority to the Committee to discuss this question, but if the italicised portion of the Bill were struck out the Committee would have no jurisdiction to deal with this special expenditure. It was perfectly idle for the Home Secretary to expect business men to believe that the cost would be limited to the provision of a few extra clerks in the Home Office; the Bill would involve expenditure at all British ports, on vessels in transit, and even in foreign ports, but to this fact the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded at all. The Resolution referred to the expensed, not merely of the detention of objectionable characters, but of their conveyance back to the port of embarkation. The Committee were entitled to know the extent to which the hon. Gentleman expected to put these clauses into operation, for surely the Government had ascertained the number of immigrants who came into the country and formed an estimate as to what the cost of administration would be. He stated frankly, however, the one reason he would vote against the present proposal was that if it were rejected this offensive, unnecessary, and un-English Bill could not possibly pass.
MR. McCRAEcomplained that the Government was placing the Committee in a most extraordinary position. The Home Department would have to deal with some 80,000 aliens, and yet they were seriously told that the Government had no idea of the cost of
1142
the administration of the Act. The House was told to practise economy, but the Government was taking a leap in the dark with regard to expenditure which might be very considerable. He would like to know if the Treasury had been consulted as to the cost of administrating the Act? If they had not, there might be friction between that Department and the Home Office. The Government, whatever their views might be of the merits of the Bill, had evidently gone into this undertaking without any consideration of its financial aspects.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the Home Secretary had placed the Committee in a most difficult situation. They had not the least idea from what he had said in a speech which should have been full of information whether he merely meant to add a typewriter or an office boy to his office at Whitehall, or whether he intended the Resolution and the clause in the Bill to cover establishments in every one of our great ports. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any experience whatever of the landing of passengers in the United Kingdom other than that he obtained in the main ports for proceeding to the Continent. But at the port of Hull there were tens of thousands of passengers who arrived every year and did not intend to settle in the United Kingdom, but who crossed to Liverpool and thence to the United States. Could they imagine that the present staff of Custom House officers there would be anything like adequate for the careful inspection of every one of those passengers? At the Tyne there were thousands of passengers coming in the same way, in Leith there were many, and the same remark applied to Aberdeen, the Thames Harwich, and many of the Western ports Every one of those ports would require a very largely increased staff, and the Home Secretary told them that they were to be under the Home Office. What an extraordinary confusion of Government Departments. Custom House officers were, so far as the duties went, under this Act to be under the Home Office. He could not imagine that the Department under whom those officers at present

1143
served was likely to bear the expenses of this measure—which were bound to be very great in the large ports—without grumbling, and he feared very much that the Estimates would go up every year. But, as a matter of fact, the expenses would apply to accommodation as well as to persons. They might have to provide for the erection of establishments—compounds possibly—where detained aliens might be lodged while they were under examination. They might have to establish in every one of the great ports where passengers arrived something similar to the Spinning House which he knew at Cambridge in his day.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member's point might be relevant on the Committee stage of the clause, but it was not relevant on the present occasion.
MR. RUNCIMANsubmitted with all deference that he was not objecting to the establishment of those houses, but was pointing out that the Home Office had made no estimate whatever as to the expenses which they were likely to incur. But not only did the clause apply to accommodation but it also applied to other expenses. Those expenses might mean the payment of the fires for the sending back of aliens to the Continent or wherever else they came from. The Home Secretary had no idea what expenditure was going to be incurred under the three heads he had mentioned. From the point of view of economy that was a most improper procedure, and the Home Secretary had shown in his speech that he did not know at all how far this Bill was likely to carry him. The truth was that it was not only a leap in the dark so far as our national traditions went, but a leap in the dark so far as expenditure went.
*MR. LEVYurged that the Government had no right to bring forward this Resolution without giving them some idea of what the expenses would be, because the Bill laid down clearly what would be the duties of the officers who would be appointed, and of the State Departments which undertook to carry out the Bill, and the necessary estimate might easily
1144
have been made. Undesirable aliens arrived at every port throughout the Kingdom and there would be no difficulty in the Government making an estimate of the number of people arriving in each port, and then arranging how many officers would be desirable to examine the people who arrived. If only certain ports were officered was it likely that criminal aliens would go to those particular ports? Certainly not. Unless they treated all ports alike it was clear that the Bill would work so as to exclude only those people whom they were told on the Second Reading it was not intended to keep out of the country. He did not think any Member who supported the Bill on the Second Reading would have done so had he thoroughly realised what the expenditure would be. It was useless to try and deceive themselves. The Bill, if it was carried out in the spirit in which it had been introduced into the House, must be administered so that in every port they would have to have people to examine every foreigner who landed, and all would agree that there would be some difficulty about that. Or was the Act to be worked so as merely to exclude the poor aliens and permit some of the most undesirable aliens, who were a scourge on society, to land on our shores freely, perhaps undesirable ladies who arrived at Dover, if they put plenty of rouge on their cheeks and wore fur cloaks, would be allowed to pass indiscriminately.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really not addressing his remarks to the subject matter before the Committee. I must ask him to address himself to the Resolution under discussion.
MR. MILVAINrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  ALIENS [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question again proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the salaries and remuneration of any persons employed and of any Expenses incurred under any Act of the present session, to make provision with respect to the Immigration of Aliens, and other matters incidental thereto."—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  *MR. LEVYsaid prior to the adjournment of the House he had endeavoured to confine himself strictly to the financial aspect of the Bill, and he hoped he had been successful in so doing. This Bill they were told was drafted for the purpose of excluding undesirable aliens from this country. Undesirable aliens were of various types, hence it might be necessary in order to avoid complications to use a great deal of discrimination in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. Of course everyone would give the Government credit for a desire to carry it out without prejudice against any particular class. Therefore the responsibility upon those who would have to carry out its provisions would be very great, and the men whose duty it would be to carry out the provisions of the Act would have to be men of tact and judgment and they would have to receive adequate remuneration. This Resolution asked that this Committee should find all the money necessary for carrying out this Act. The Act would necessitate the appointment of officers for the purpose of examining all foreign passengers brought to any port in the United Kingdom before they were landed, and unless it was to be administered in a tentative manner, and only put into force where a certain class of aliens happened to land, it would have to be carried out in a complete manner and an officer or
  1146
  officers appointed to every port in the United Kingdom. Before they passed this measure into law the Committee wanted to know what it was going to cost. To say that it was impossible to make an estimate was not treating the House in a proper manner. Why, it might land this country into an expenditure of £500,000 annually. It was admitted that this Bill was not conceived in the desire to eliminate from the East End of London, and elsewhere in this country, the poor aliens who had been driven here out of their own country, and therefore the officers who would have to enforce this Act would have immense responsibility thrown upon them. They might bring this country into diplomatic conflict with foreign countries in a very short time. They would have to keep registers and records and would have to be responsible for returning to their own countries undesirable aliens who came to this. They might send some aliens, who were not undesirable, back to their own country and complications might arise when they got there, and this Bill might not only impose upon this country the expenditure of returning these persons to their own country, but of compelling them to land when they got there. At every port we should have to make arrangements for detaining these people. We should have to set up at each port a sort of compound. Let the Government ascertain what such a thing as that would cost them before they asked the Committee to pass this Resolution. They could not put up a ring fence and expect that these people would, go into it. They would have to put up a series of buildings in which to house them, otherwise there would be apt to be trouble with the nations who sent aliens to this country. The Home Secretary, therefore, had no right to come down and ask the Committee to give them a blank cheque for a matter which must cost many thousands a year, in order that this Bill might work as it had been suggested it should work. If it was merely going to be worked in the interests of a few in the East End of London then it might cost very little, but if it was intended to keep all undesirable aliens out of this country then it would cost a very great deal indeed.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he understood that the expenditure under this Bill would in the ordinary course come into the Estimates of next year, but he was one of those who viewed the probable expenditure with considerable alarm. The expenditure of this country was going up by leaps and bounds, and on occasion he had attempted to obtain pledges from Ministers that the expenditure of their Departments should not increase. In his opinion, they were entitled to ask those who were going to administer this Bill for some reasonable idea of the cost the country was going to be put to in this regard. The procedure which they were compelled to follow in all such matters as this was of a most unsatisfactory character. First, the House was bound to decide whether it would carry out a certain work or not, and, having decided that it would carry out the work, it then proceeded to count the cost. It was not the fault of any Government but the procedure laid down by the House itself. It was a very unfortunate thing, but it was the procedure they had to follow, and this was the first convenient opportunity that had been given to draw attention to it. As to the cost of working this Bill, it would have been much more satisfactory and business-like if the Government had been compelled, as all Governments should be when they brought in Bills of this kind, to affix at the end of the Bill an estimate of the cost of the working of it. If such a principle applied to Government Bills it should apply still more to private Bills, and he was certain that in many cases had there been an estimate of the cost annexed to the Bill that would have greatly facilitated the progress of many Bills introduced into this House. If this Bill was to become the law of the land it should be carried out with proper officers adequately paid—officers on whose services the country could depend. The whole of Clause 1, in his opinion, would moan extra cost. The cost of the staff and forms would be considerable. The Treasury was not a Department that was fond of giving its money away, and he was perfectly certain in his own mind that the I Government had some sort of idea of what the Bill was going to cost,
  1148
  otherwise they would not have obtained the sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was, therefore, the proper time to ask for some rough idea of the cost. Anxious as he was to see these aliens who caused such harm, as he thought, to our own working-class population kept out, he thought the cost of keeping them out should be within reason, and that the Committee ought to have some idea what it was going to be before they passed the Resolution. Could not the hon. Member give some idea of the extra staff which would be required to carry out the various sections of the Act? He knew it was difficult in estimating for work, the extent of which one could not see, to give a correct estimate of what it was going to cost, but every business firm had some rough idea before they started to do the work of what the cost was going to be, and this Committee ought to have some idea of the cost, if not of the number of officers that would be required in order that this Bill might be worked with advantage to the country.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he should not be in order at this stage in expressing satisfaction at the Government having introduced this Bill, but be hoped that it would meet with the sanction of the House of Commons that evening. Hon. Members who hid taken part in the debate seemed to him to be too impatient in their desire to get an entire scheme. In a case of this kind when the Government were making a new departure, or even a new Department, they were entitled to considerable time in which to frame their scheme and to lay it before the House. It was only by slow degrees that any change of this kind could be carried out at all. Those who were old enough to remember the Factory Acts or the Mines Statutes would remember that it was only by slow degrees, step by step, that those Statutes were placed upon the Statute-book. No Government introducing a scheme of this kind could describe it at once in detail and give even an approximate estimate of the cost. The work must be experimental, and in this case more than ordinarily so, because it had to deal with more than one Department. The Local Government Board must play

  1149
  an important part under this Bill, because the sanitary conditions of these people would have to be investigated with great care. Another Department must come in which would have to deal with foreigners guilty of crime, or leading, or having been guilty of leading, immoral and disreputable lives. The carrying out of such provisions as these might involve communications with foreign Governments which must necessarily entail expense. No Government could foretell what staff would be required. It was only by experience, and possibly some failures, that the Government would know how best to deal with this difficulty. He certainly felt some surprise at the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite with reference to reform. He found that all reforms were good which they proposed, but reforms suggested by the Unionist or Conservative Party were liable to every kind of suspicion. He did not think that was a fair attitude for them to take in a case of this kind. They claimed to be men of ideas.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: You are not discussing the Resolution before the Committee. You are discussing the Bill as a whole.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he was sorry he had gone beyond the scope of the Resolution. He only wished to suggest that the Government should be allowed a fair opportunity of bringing before the House their plans for the machinery that would be essential to the carrying out of the Bill. The financial arrangements must come before the House in the form of Estimates in due season, and that would be the time to object to any proposal that might be made.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he approved generally of some legislation of the kind proposed. He understood the Home Secretary to say that the Government was unable to give any estimate of the cost of the machinery of the Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill undertake to give before the Committee stage an estimate of the cost of the administration. It was a point
  1150
  of considerable magnitude, and he thought they were entitled to some information on it.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he thought the House would acquit the Home Secretary of having been guilty of any discourtesy in not placing the terms of the Resolution on the Paper. The criticisms in regard to the non-publication of the terms were intended to point out the extreme difficulty which hon. Members had in discussing this very important matter, when they only knew the actual terms from hearing the Resolution hurriedly read over by the Chairman. He hoped that in future Resolutions of this nature would be properly put on the Paper, in order that they might know exactly what the Government were asking. It would probably considerably shorten the debate that took place. One point which had been established was that the Government had not given the slightest attention to what might be termed the financial side of the measure. It was quite clear that they had not consulted the Treasury, and now they asked the House by this Resolution to devolve on the Committee upstairs responsibility which properly belonged to themselves. That was an action which there had been no attempt to defend that night. The administration of this measure might cost thousands of pounds, and surely the right hon. Gentleman had had some estimate for his guidance. Was it to be £10,000, £20,000,or £30,000? They could not attach too much importance to the fact that without money this Bill would be completely inoperative, and they had to consider to what extent they were willing to give a blank cheque to the Committee upstairs and to the Treasury for the expenses which would be incurred in carrying out the measure. If they could not get an estimate from the Government he hoped that, at all events, they would be able before the debate closed to limit the power of the Committee upstairs and the Treasury as to the amount the working of the Bill would cost.
  Referring to the provisions of the Bill which involved expenditure, he pointed out that captains were required to make proper returns of aliens on their ships, and that they were to be liable to

  1151
  a penalty of £100 for failure to comply with the Statute. In this connection a large staff of officials would be required at home and foreign ports, and he wished to know what sort of provision was going to be made in regard to that. A great deal of inquiry would be required into the character and antecedents of aliens who arrived in this country. The aliens were to make returns for two years after landing in order that the Government might know exactly where they were living. It would be necessary to have a huge staff of private inquiry agents to find out where aliens were living when they did not make returns, otherwise the Bill would be a dead letter. Had the Government formed any idea of the cost of that branch of the work? Then there was the question of the inspection of aliens on landing, both in regard to their physical and mental condition. The man at 30s. or £2 a week could not tell whether an alien who landed was mentally strong or weak. He would like to know what member of the Cabinet was going to be in charge of the test made of the mental capacity of aliens. It seemed to him that it would be necessary to have experts in lunacy haunting the docks in order to see whether the aliens came up to the test to be imposed by the Government. In any case they would require a large medical staff at all the ports, and that would cost a great deal of money indeed. Was there any estimate of what the cost would be? There were to be registers not only for the Government, but for the benefit of public, and that proposal opened up the possibility of immense expenditure. Had the Government formed any idea what that would cost? There were to be inquiries made in different districts as to overcrowding. Besides the work falling on the Home Office, the Local Government Board was to have a good deal to do with the matter, and he presumed also that the action they took would mean the expenditure of money. He could imagine that thousands of inquiries might have to be made in the course of a year, because the Bill provided that a common informer had only to write a postcard to the Home Office and an inquiry would take place as to whether the person referred to was liable to be dealt with under the Bill. That would cost a great
  1152
  deal of money. There was provision in the Bill for sending back aliens who were considered undesirable. He could see great difficulty in preventing them from landing. He could see also that it might lead to a grave state of things between this country and other countries. There was also the question of keeping the aliens during the time inquiries were taking place. Establishments would have to be provided for them, and it might be weeks before the inquiries were completed. All the time this country, which was blamed for its generosity towards aliens, would have to keep them at the expense of the ratepayers until proper information could be forthcoming. The Government did not realise the importance of their own Bill if they ignored the fact that all these things meant money if the Bill was to be of any use. In refusing to give an indication of the cost it was no answer at all to say that the Committee might alter the Bill and that a statement could not be given now. That was simply a form of evasion. What estimate had the Government formed on the basis of the Bill passing in its present form? The right hon. Gentleman who spoke early in the debate said it was difficult to form an estimate, but that was not a satisfactory answer to an important matter of this kind.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. WALTER LONG,)hoped the Committee would now be allowed to come to a decision on this matter, which had been exhaustively debated. It was impossible for him to meet the demand of hon. Gentlemen opposite for some sort of an estimate, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had put it, in any more precise way than had been stated by his right hon. friend the Home Secretary.
  MR. DALZIEL: You have the official information.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Government believed that with the exception of a very small addition for the clerical staff the existing staff would be sufficient for the work which would be involved in the carrying out of the Bill. They might be mistaken, but to attempt to state in a precise figure the expenditure, which

  1153
  would be incurred in giving effect to the provisions of the Bill would almost certainly be misleading. Some calculation would apparently satisfy the hon. Gentleman however fanciful.
  MR. DALZIEL: I say it is the business of the Government to give an estimate. They are paid for it, they have a staff to do the work, and they ought to be able to form an estimate which is not fanciful at all.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid tin hon. Gentleman stated that he did not care whether the estimate was £5,000 or £20,000. He had said that the Government believed that a small addition to the existing machinery would be sufficient, and if they were to give an estimate of the cost it might be misleading. The hon. Gentleman opposite had given a striking example of how easy it was to speak at length on a small subject. The Local Government Board had inspectors appointed for the purpose of making inquiries and the expenses incurred would be charged against the different parties. Consequently, the Board's share of the expense would be infinitesimal. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs asked whether the Government would make a further statement before the Committee stage. He was afraid that they would not be able to make any statement which would be trustworthy. Debates often took place in regard to Bills introduced by private Members, and he should like to know how many would have the slightest chance of passing if they were subjected to the kind of criticism to which this measure had been subjected. They did not then hear the constitutional arguments which had been so fully reiterated to-night. The Government had given the Committee as much information as was possible in the circumstances, and he could only repeat the statement of the Home Secretary that they believed the Bill could be effectively applied without much cost.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he had been quite alarmed to hear all the prognostications of the enormous expense to be incurred in the attempt to carry out the administration of this Bill. Surely whoever drafted the
  1154
  Bill must have had some idea in his mind as to what the expenditure would be, and, if the Government had gone into the question from an ordinary business point of view, they must have made a conjectural estimate of what the Bill would cost. In all this kind of work they had to look to whether tin expenditure was not more than the benefit to be obtained. Were they to get a benefit from what tin administration of this Bill would cost? The right hon. Gentleman said they would, and probably that might be the case, but still the Government ought to be prepared with an estimate of what it would cost. Would local machinery be required at tile ports at which the immigrants were chiefly disembarked? Would there be special medical inspectors? Where and how were the aliens to be maintained when they arrived in this country? These were all points winch must have been considered, and some estimate of their cost made. Why the contended was, that it was not fair to the Committee, and not candid on the part of those responsible for the Bill, not to give the Committee this information. They had had examples in the past of measures which they were told would be very simple and inexpensive in their administration, but which had subsequently made large invasions on the public parse. In these days when all Parties professed to have a regard for economy, the Opposition were bound to raise their voices against extravagance, and demand information as to what amount of expenditure was to be incurred in working this Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could hardly believe that the President of the Local Government Board was serious when he stated that it was impossible to form some kind of estimate of the expense of carrying this Bill into effect. It was perfectly well known to those who travelled in America that there were a large number of officials engaged in putting into operation the Aliens Exclusion Bill in that country, and the Government could have obtained through our Consuls information as to what it cost the American Government. The simple fact was that the Government wore proceeding with

  1155
  this measure, as they had proceeded with every other, recklessly, haphazard, and without having thought how far-reaching it was. The President of the Local Government Board had come to the conclusion that with a few extra clerks for examining the physical condition of the immigrants, the Customs officers could do the rest of the work. He wondered whether the Government had read their own Bill. Clause 6 provided for prosecutions for a breach of the regulations. That meant employing lawyers. He knew something of lawyers himself, and their bills did not come to a trifle for additional clerical assistance. The right hon. Gentleman had dismissed the question of the cost of inquiries in crowded areas. His experience was that the official inspectors were hard-worked, and he did not believe that there was one who could have any spare time to make these inquiries. Therefore, there must be an additional staff of officials in the Local Government Board, and that could not be done for nothing. Then Clause 4 provided that aliens must not go into prohibited areas; that meant sending down officials from time to time to see whether there were aliens in these prohibited areas. The President of the Local Government Board thought that all they had got to do was to issue an Order and publish it in the London Gazette, which nobody ever saw, and which no alien could read. The Local Government Board, or some other Department, must from time to time inspect these areas to see whether there were aliens there, and whether it was done by the Local Government Board or Customs and Excise it must be paid for.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it would be done by the local authorities.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not care who did it, but additional expense would be incurred.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Committee were discussing a Resolution regarding expenditure out of the Exchequer, but the hon. Gentleman was discussing expenditure by the local authorities.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid supposing it was the police who made the inspec-
  1156
  tion, would the right hon. Gentleman say that no part of that would fall on the Exchequer? If the number of police were increased to discharge this duty, that implied an increase of contributions from the Imperial Exchequer. All this showed that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had really never gone into any estimate of the cost of administration of this Bill. This debate would answer some purpose, if it only showed the Government what their Bill really was. Surely every proposal of this sort was largely a question of cost. Was the object worth attaining, if in the process we ran up a bill of £100,000? There was one item the Government had never contemplated. They seemed to think that the only people who required examining would be the 8,000 aliens who came here to remain. But what about the 80,000 aliens who passed through this country? Were we going to accept the statement of these immigrants that they were going through to New York or elsewhere, or were we going to have a sort of train sealed in bond to convey them across Great Britain, and were we to have officials to see that these bonded aliens went on board ship for their passage across the Atlantic? When once a Bill of this sort had been passed, it would be necessary to see to these 80,000 aliens as well as to the 8,000 who remained. If these 80,000 aliens were to be medically and mentally examined all the mad doctors in the country would not be sufficient for the purpose. Moreover an examination was to be made into their moral condition as well, and their financial position for two years previous to their arrival in this country. It took three Official Receivers with large salaries to examine the financial position of 3,000 or 4,000 people in this country, but the Bill provided for the examination of the bank-books, ledgers, and other accounts of these 80,000 aliens. This really was a most useful Bill if it only showed what a perfectly preposterous thing the Government were capable of proposing to the House. The Government said that the cost would not be much beyond that of providing a little clerical assistance. Surely the House would not commit itself to all this mad enterprise by which bills would be run up to an unknown amount. To put the meaning of the statement of

  1157
  the President of the Board of Trade to the test, he moved to add to the Resolution the words "Not exceeding in any one year £5,000."
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'but not exceeding in any one year five thousand pounds.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that the Committee had been pressing for a long time to have an estimate of the cost of the Bill, and the figures in the Amendment moved by his hon. friend were the actual figures given by the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had never committed himself to any figure like £5,000. What he said was, that the existing staff could do the work with some little clerical assistance.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that that proved the case that £5,000 would be more than enough for the few extra clerks. The Amendment went beyond the amount suggested by the Government to the Committee. He really thought that for the protection of the taxpayers they ought to put some limit to the expenditure to be incurred for the purposes of the Bill. He himself would put a higher limit than £5,000 if the Government were prepared to say what number of officials would be required. He trusted the Committee would support his hon. friend.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that they had pressed the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board to give some estimate as to the cost of carrying out this Bill, with the principle of which he personally agreed; but the Government seemed to think that it was a sufficient answer to their inquiries that this was an official Bill. If it were an official Bill one would have thought that they would have gone into all matters of detail as to questions of cost in connection with it; but it now appeared that they had done nothing of the sort. If, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, the administration of the Bill would only involve the employment of a few clerks, then the
  1158
  Amendment of his hon. friend would be amply sufficient to cover that. He was sorry to say he was very suspicious as to the intention of the Government. He thought, with his hon. friend, that this was a "shop window" Bill. He believed the Government did not mean business, or they would have been able to give some estimate of the cost. Under these circumstances he should certainly support the Amendment. He thought the Committee had not been properly treated in regard to this matter, especially as this would be the last opportunity which the House would have to consider it. He believed that the supporters of the Bill on that side of the House had been jockeyed in regard to this question, and many of them would not have supported the Second Reading of the Bill had they known it was to be referred to a Grand Committee.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was not entitled to refer on this Resolution to the Second Reading. He had already called the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that he was out of order.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that at all events they were entitled to support this Amendment on the ground that they ought to limit the expenditure.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that he would like to ask the Home Secretary a distinct question and he hoped he would receive a distinct answer. This was not a private Member's Bill. It was a Government Bill, and the Treasury was not in the habit of leaving these matters of finance in the position in which they were, if the Committee were to accept the observations of the right hon. Gentleman that no figures as to the cost of the administration of the Bill could be arrived at. He wished to know whether or not the Home Office had submitted to the Treasury an estimate of the probable cost of putting this Bill into operation, whether the Treasury did not discuss that estimate, and whether communications in black and white did not pass between the two offices in which the Treasury intimated that they would, assent up to a certain figure per annum. The Committee ought to have some definite statement as to what that figure was.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he had already stated that it had never been the practice of Parliament when Bills of this character were introduced to make a dendrite estimate or give any figures to the House, and to that answer he adhered. He would not have risen now except as a matter of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. He ventured to think that the debate had been carried on to an undue length. Resolutions of this sort on Bills of this character had never been debated at the same length in his experience. In regard to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, he said that, of course, the expenditure under the Bill would be such as the Treasury would sanction, and communications had taken place with the Treasury but he repeated that he was certainly not going to give any estimate until he knew to what portions of the Bill the House would assent.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that in order that the Committee might not be misled, unintentionally of course, by the
  Home Secretary, when he said that this question had been debated at undue length, he would recall to the memory of the right hon. Gentleman a very memorable debate which took place when the present Prime Minister was Chief Secretary for Ireland and proposed that an additional Under-Secretary should be appointed. The debate on the necessary Resolution was protracted, he thought, to two, if not three, sittings and the Opposition was so strong that the Government ultimately withdrew the proposal.
  MR. TOULMINrose to continue the debate, when—
  Mr. SECRETARY AKERS-DOUGLASrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 123.(Division List, No. 139.).

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gore, Hn. G. R. O. Ormsby-(Salop

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'ryS Edm'nd)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gretton, John

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Balcarres, Lord

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hain, Edward

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Dalkeith, Karl of

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'ud'nderry

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Denny, Colonel

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Mich. Hicks

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bignold, Arthur

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Bigwood, James

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doughty, George

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Howard Hn. (Kent, Faversham

  Bowlest, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Brassey, Albert

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Egerton Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hunt, Rowland

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bull, William James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Keswick, William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

  Chamberline, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Lee Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Chapman, Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gardner, Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Cochranc, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nairn)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Randles, John S.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Oxf'd Univ.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W.

  Renwick, George

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  K'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Tuff, Charles

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Valentia, Viscount

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries-sh.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Sethnal Green

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Milvain, Thorns

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Moore, William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Spear, John Ward

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acand-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Percy, Earl

  Stock, James Henry

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, Robert John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  Allen, Charles P.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Reddy, M.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Austin, Sir John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bell, Richard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rigg, Richard

  Boland, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Burns, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Burt, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Langley, Batty

  Rose, Charles Day

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Cameron, Robert

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Russell, T. W.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shackleton, David James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leng, Sir John

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crooks, William

  Lundon, W.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Crae, George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Delany, William

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Toulmin, George

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murphy, John

  Weir, Jgmes Galloway

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf' d

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Parrott, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Partington, Oswald

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Hammond, John

  Perks, Robert William

  Harwood, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 187. (Division List No. 140).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, Robert John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  Allen, Charles P.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Reddy, M.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Motley)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Austin, Sir John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bell, Richard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rigg, Richard

  Boland, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Burns, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Burt, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Caldwell, James

  Langley, Batty

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Cameron, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shackleton, David James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leng, Sir John

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Crooks, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tennant, Harold John

  Delany, William

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Toulmin, George

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murphy, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wrason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Foster, Six Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Malley, William

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Parrott, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Runciman.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Hammond, John

  Perks, Robert William

  Harwood, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bigwood, James

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole-

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bowles, Lt-Col. H.F(Middlesex

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brassey, Albert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bull, William James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Bt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Crops, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A (Worc.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Chapman, Edward

  Denny, Colonel

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renwick, George

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Doughty, George

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge-

  Douglas, Et. Hon. A. Akers

  Jessel Captain Herbert Merton

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney).

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Keswick, William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawson, J. Grant(Yorks., N.R.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool).

  Faber, Edmund E. (Hants, W.)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Spear, John Ward

  Forster, Henry William.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stock, James Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Osf'd Univ)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Greene, Sir E.W (B'rySEdm'nds

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Moore, William

  Tuff, Charles

  Gretton, John

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Hain, Edward

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd.

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Hummer, Walter R.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H (Somers't, E

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whereupon Mr. SECRETARY AKERS-DOUGLAS claimed, "That the main Question be now put.
  Main Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 141.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chapman, Edward

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bignold, Arthur

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bigwood, James

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F (Middlesex)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Brassey, Albert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brymer, William. Ernest

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bull, William James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r)

  Butcher, John George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. C. W. (Leeds)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A (Worc.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Denny, Colonel

  Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renwick, George

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Doughty, George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Keswick, William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Spear, John Ward

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs,

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stock, James Henry

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Oxf'd Univ.

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Greene, Sir E.W. (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Moore, William

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Gretton, John

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-Lyne

  Hain, Edward

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H (Somers't, E)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Randles, John S.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fenwick, Charles

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cremer, William Randal

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Allen, Charles R.

  Crooks, William

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cullinan, J.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Austin, Sir John

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Bell, Richard

  Delany, William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Boland, John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Hammond, John

  Brigg, John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Harwood, George

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burns, John

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Burt, Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Caldwell, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Cameron, Robert

  Ellice, Capt. E.C (SAndrw's Bghs

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Emmott, Alfred

  Joicey, Sir James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  1168

  1169

  Jordan, Jeremiah.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shackleton, David James

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Sheehy, David

  Kearley, Hudson E,

  O'Brien., Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Lambert, George

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Langley, Batty

  O'Malley, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Parrott, William

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Partington, Oswald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Leigh, Sir Joseph.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Leng, Sir John.

  Perks, Robert William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Levy, Maurice

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Lough, Thomas

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Russell

  Toulmin, George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Crae, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mansfield, Horace Randall

  Rigg, Richard

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roberts, John. H. (Denbighs.)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Murnaghan, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Murphy, John

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Runciman, Walter

  Newnes, Sir George

  Russell, T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Nolan, Col-John P. (Galway, N.)

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, of the salaries and remuneration of any persons employed and of any Expenses incurred under any Act of the present session, to make provision with respect to the Im-
  migration of Aliens, and other matters incidental thereto.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report this Resolution to the House."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 142.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Worc.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chapman, Edward

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Arrol, Sir William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Forster, Henry William

  Bagot, Cant. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r.)

  Craig, Chaw. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormshy-(Salop

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Balfour, Kenneth. R. (Christch.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Greene, Sir E.W (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Bignold, Arthur

  Denny, Colonel

  Gretton, John

  Bigwood, James

  Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hain, Edward

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F (Middlesex

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Brassey, Albert

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Doughty, George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Bull, William James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Butcher, John George

  Burning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H (Somers't, E

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Moore, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Morgan, D. J. (Welthamstow)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stock, James Henry

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Cray C.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hunt, Rowland

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tuff, Charles

  Kerr, John

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Percy, Earl

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wharton, Rt. Hon John Lloyd

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskino

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Renwick, George

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Russell, T. W.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Kitson, Sir James

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Elibank, Master of

  Langley, Batty

  Allen, Charles P.

  Ellice, Capt. E.C (SAndrw's Bghs

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Leng, Sir John

  Austin, Sir John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Levy, Maurice

  Bell, Richard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Boland, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lough, Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lundon, W.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Burns, John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Crae, George

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Caldwell, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Cameron, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hammond, John

  Houlton, John Fletcher

  Cawley, Frederick

  Harwood, George

  Murnaghan, George

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Helme, Noryal Watson

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Crooks, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, K.

  Cullinan, J.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South}

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hutton, Alfred F. (Morley)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Delany, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, P, J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Devlin Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, K.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Malley, William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Parrott, William

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  1172

  1173

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Shackleton, David James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Price, Robert John

  Sheehy, David

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rea, Russell

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Reddy, M.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Slack, John Bamford

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C.R. (Northants)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Rigg, Richard

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lambert and Mr. Soares.

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, J A (Glsmorgan, Gower

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Toulmin, George

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
*THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey should come in in line 9. I think it will read better there after the word "shall." The next three Amendments on the Paper have already been disposed of. The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Spalding merely negatives compensation, and the proper place to take that is when the word "compensation" is reached, and he can then move to strike it out. The next four Amendments deal with the time limit and the first three Amendments on the top of the nest page also deal with the same subject. The Amendments which come next, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, all refer to the Court before which the question of the renewal of licences is to be considered, and the proper place to raise that is when we reach the words quarter sessions. Then the hon. Member can move to strike out those words and insert such words as he may desire to substitute. I understand that the hon. Member for Huddersfield has taken his Amendment off the Paper. The first Amendment which is in order is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tunbridge.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the Amendment he had to move raised a question which had excited a great deal of interest, and it was a question whether this clause should be confined to on-licences, or whether it should include off-licences. Two distinct questions were raised by this Amendment. In the first place there was the question of jurisdiction and in the second place the question of compensation. Upon the question of jurisdiction it was, he believed, now the law, and always had been, that the same body which dealt with the renewal or the refusal or the granting of on-licences should deal with off-licences. He thought very considerable inconvenience would arise by drawing a distinction between the two. In the case of the refusal of an on-licence jurisdiction would be transferred to quarter sessions except for the reasons stated in the clause, but in the case of an off-licence the jurisdiction would remain with the petty sessions, and therefore he thought it was a question upon which the Committee was entitled to have some opinion from the Government. As regarded compensation, if an off-licence was taken away for causes other than misconduct he thought a similar rule should apply as in the case of an on-licence. He fully admitted that there were great difficulties in the way, because the case of an off-licence differed very considerably from that of an on-licence. In a public-house the principal business was carried on in connection with the licence, and all that business would cease if the licence was removed. But in the case of an off-licence in connection with a grocery business the amount of business transacted in consequence of the licence would be very much less and therefore the compensation should be smaller.

1175
Although he admitted the difficulty he thought there was certainly a class of off-licences which ought to be dealt with, and which he hoped the Home Secretary would be able to meet—he alluded to off-beerhouses. He did not see why such beerhouses could not be brought under the Bill and treated in the same way as ordinary public-houses. He formally moved his Amendment, and although this might not be the best place to press it, he hoped the Government would state their opinion in reference to this question.
Amendment proposed—
In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words 'an on,' and insert the word 'a.'—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'an on' stand part of the clause."
MR. CRIPPSsaid that in his view it was necessary that both off and on-licences should be dealt with by the same jurisdiction when they were considering the question of whether a licence was necessary or not. He was afraid that on the question of compensation, which he did not think was involved in this Amendment, he should take a different view. He thought there were great differences between off and on-licences for the purpose of compensation, although there was no difference as to jurisdiction. As hon. Members opposite were aware, at the present moment brewster sessions could deal with both and it would be a reactionary method to separate the jurisdiction in regard to two subjects which were so closely connected. Therefore as far as he was concerned he wanted to apply this principle to the jurisdiction but not to compensation.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he understood this Amendment was in the nature of a preliminary canter for a more serious race. The really important point was whether the class of house indicated by the Amendment was to be brought into the Bill for the purpose of compensation, the question of jurisdiction being in this case one of minor importance.
1176
Up to 1880 these licences were, so to speak, freehold licences, but in the years 1880 and 1882 the trade, through the instrumentality of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, obtained a provision to the effect that these licences should be no longer considered as freehold, but that they should be subject to the absolute discretion of the justices. It was a movement promoted by the trade itself, which thought, apparently, that these off-licences were dangerous competitors. But now, although the competition had been displaced, the brewers wanted to bring in these licences for the purpose of compensation. He sincerely hoped, however, that the Government would not think it necessary to bestow a perpetual fixity of tenure in the case of these off-licences.
MR. CORBETTsaid the question of these licences had been brought prominently forward in the Report of the Royal Commission, and it had been found that in one town thirty-two out of forty-eight of this class of licences were tied. This Amendment did not deal only with the beerhouses, but also with certain other classes of off-licences. It also dealt with grocers' licences. Attempts had been made to show that some of the provisions of this Bill showed some continuity, but to include grocers' licences was a direct contradiction of that policy. These licences were handed over to the justices as recently as the year 1902, and the Act of Parliament laid down that the licensing justices should have unqualified discretion to refuse a licence upon any grounds which appeared to them sufficient. Another clause in the same Act was still more suggestive as to the reasons which weighed with the House of Commons at the time. That clause provided that the justices might take away a licence on the ground that the licensee had sold surreptitiously or misrepresented the nature of the goods sold under his licence or had in any other way been guilty of misconduct. Special precautions were found to be necessary to prevent abuses by the holders of these licences. For the purpose of checking these abuses, could it be maintained that quarter sessions could

1177
protect the public so well as the local justices? This class of licensees had protection for life, and the discretion of the justices would only come into full exercise as new men came upon the scene. The fact that the existing licensees had their life interest fully protected was a reason for not bringing them under the compensation provisions.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLwarned the Government that the acceptance of this Amendment would lead to trouble from Ireland.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)said it was evident to anyone who understood the law that the Government could not accept the Amendment in this form. It would bring in an immense number of off licences, of which there were some fourteen different kinds. It would be impossible to apply the principles of the Bill to beer off-licences which were used in connection with other businesses. The compensation clause would be inapplicable to a grocer the loss of whose beer licence would not destroy his business. The grocer would in most cases object to coming in under the Bill; for he would have to pay towards the compensation fund on the whole valuation of his premises, and could only receive compensation for the loss of his retail beer business. The scheme of the Bill was not applicable at all to the great majority of the cases in which there were beer off-licences. With regard to the point raised by his hon. and learned friend he was afraid that he was mixing up the beer off-licences which were not merely off-licences where nothing else was sold. He thought the Committee would see that it would be
1178
impossible to accept this Amendment which would bring within the principles of this Bill every kind of licence. He did not know that there was any very great demand for dealing with these licences, but at any rate the question must be raised in some particular form limiting it to particular cases he bad mentioned. He was not saying that the Government conceded that point, but if it was raised in the way he suggested it would be fully considered. He did not think that the difficulty anticipated by the hon. Member arose. The hon. Member said that the two classes of licences ought to be dealt with by one authority, but in his view of this Bill they would, because both classes of licences would come in the first instance before the brewster sessions, the difference being that if anybody was dissatisfied with the decision of the brewster sessions, they could appeal to the quarter sessions, which would be the final Court of appeal. The other cases suggested in regard to on-licences would necessarily go forward after the brewster sessions had adjudicated, and a report would be sent to the quarter sessions instead of having an appeal. Therefore, in both cases the ultimate tribunal was the quarter sessions, and it certainly was not the intention of the Government to interfere with the existing jurisdiction. Therefore, he did not think there was any real substance in the objection put forward by his hon. and learned friend, and it was impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.
MR. WHITTAKERsaid this discussion was a most interesting one and was throwing some light upon some very interesting points. It was interesting to know from the Solicitor-General that the reason why

1179
compensation could not be given to a certain class of licences was based not upon their value or on equity, but upon the fact that another business was carried on upon the premises. Hon. Members from Ireland would be interested in that point, for almost every full public-house licence in that country was for premises on which other businesses were carried on. What about hotels? The main business of hotels was not sailing liquor, but providing rooms and food for visitors. Were they going to have an Amendment leaving hotels out from compensation. As to the jurisdiction a very interesting point had been raised. The Solicitor-General had told them that both classes of licences would go to the same tribunal. He did not think that would be so; at any rate, not in county boroughs unless he had misunderstood the Bill.
*THE CHAIRMAN: All this is rather far away from the question of the off-licences.
MR. WHITTAKERsaid he was dealing with the point which the Solicitor-General had raised. The mover of this Amendment raised the question of jurisdiction, and he said that all these licences ought to come under the same jurisdiction. The Amendment applied not only to compensation but to the jurisdiction, and the hon. Member for Tunbridge gave a one of his reasons that they ought to go to the same tribunal. The hon. Member for Stretford dealt only with the point of jurisdiction and the Solicitor-General said that both classes of licences would go to the same tribunal. He wished to point out in the case of county boroughs they would not do so and this only showed the confusion which was likely to
1180
result in regard to this jurisdiction. The hon. Member for Tunbridge had referred to the inconvenience of having two jurisdictions dealing with this class of licence, but it seemed to him that they would not get rid of this complication by adopting the Amendment. It appeared to him that they had not yet had the real reason for this Amendment, which was that the discretion of the magistrates with regard to off-licences should be limited and checked. It had been realised that the change proposed with regard to on-licences did hamper and check the power of the justices, and this Amendment was being moved in order that off-licences might be put under a more limited jurisdiction. It was not uniformity that was desired, but the hon. Member opposite desired to bring these licences under the foreign jurisdiction of gentlemen who did not possess local knowledge. According to the speech which had been made by the Solicitor-General, if beer was sold in a jug compensation was to be given, but if it was sold in a bottle compensation was not to be given. He failed to see the distinction of principle.
And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

HOME INDUSTRIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.
Adjourned at four minutes after Twelve o'clock.